HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 16, 1994 Work SessionCITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
590 40th Avenue N. E.
Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878
(612) 782-2800
1V[ayor
Joseph Sturdevant
· Councilmembers
Donald G. Jolly
Bcuce G. Nawrocki
Gary L. Peterson
R~berl W. Ruettimann
City Manager
Patrick Hentges
NOTICE OF OFFICIAL MF_F~TING
Notice is hereby given that an official meeting
is to be held in the
City of Columbia Heights
as foHow~
Meeting of:
Date of Meeting:
Time of Meeting:
Location of Meeting:
Purpose of Meeting:
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER
MONDAY, MAY 16, 1994
8:00 P.M.
CONFERENCE ROOM
WORK SESSION
AGENDA
1. Sheffield Redevelopment Status
2. Police Staffing
3. City Attorney Contract
4. Landfill Cleanup Legislative
5. Bond Issuance Charter Change
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)
"SERVICE IS OUR BUSINESS" EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
PAT HENTGES, CITY MANAGER
MAY 11, 1994
SHEFFIELD REDEVELOPMENT STATUS
At Monday's work session, I would like to discuss with the City Council status of the following
Sheffield redevelopment issues:
1) Status of Acquisitions
Please find enclosed three of the appraisals for the five remaining parcels located on the 4600 block
between Pierce and Fillmore Street. One of the property owners is obtaining a second independent
appraisal, and we are making an offer on the other. I expect the appraisals for the two remaining
properties to be completed within the next week. If any offers are accepted, those purchases will be
placed on the city council meeting of May 23rd for consideration. In the event the offers are rejected,
Council may be faced with a condemnation action commencing at the June 13th City Council meeting.
2) Independent Planning Proposals
We have received a proposal from McCombs Frank Roes Associates, Inc. to do a planning analysis of
the neighborhood and the 4600 block of Pierce/Fillmore Street. Enclosed please find an outline of a
work plan submitted by QSA to do a similar analysis. The QSA proposal will include an option to do
an expanded program city-wide. I recommend that not more than $4,000 be budgeted for the initial
planning for the Sheffield neighborhood. Future planning fees could be built into architectural design
or other project development expenditures. A planning report would be the basis for developing a
Request for Proposal offer to developers or alternatively establishing the planning standards and
development parameters in the event individual lot sales option for the 4600 block is selected.
3) HOME Program Development
As I previously noticed the City Council, it appears the City's $120,000 HOME application through
Anoka County will be funded. The proceeds of the grant will be used to convert three duplex
buildings into single family homes. All of these buildings are located off of the target block. The
proceeds of the sale would go into a revolving fund that will be used to fund future duplex conversions
in the neighborhood. The next step in the process involves developing a work plan to undertake the
remodeling. This could involve the selection of an outside firm to give design assistance and work plan
preparation, with the City undertaking the remodeling coordination. Alternatively, the City could seek
outside proposals to have a private contractor or developer submit plans and budgets.
4) Building Removal/Demolition
City staff is in the process of preparing a specification that calls for the removal of at least 15 buildings
located on the 4600 block between Pierce and Fillmore Streets. We have developed feasibility costs for
both movers or demolition contractors. It is possible on the upside, the City could receive as much as
$3,000 per building if allowances are made to have the duplexes moved or alternatively, on the
downside pay as much as $67,000 for the removal and regrading of the property through demolition.
Currently, the staff is working out details to assure performance and to avoid liability pitfalls
associated with the moving alternative.
5) Sheffield Financing
On the May 23rd agenda, the City Council will consider adoption of an interim budget for the
Sheffield redevelopment project. At this point and time, the $1.5 million project will be funded with
a 13 year HRA tax levy, liquor fund reserves, and CDBG allocations. Another action item on the
agenda will designate the area as an expansion of the Central Business District redevelopment project.
This step is necessary in the event excess reserves become available from the TIF district. The actual
use and transfer of these reserves to this project will become a separate action item of the City Council
should they actually come to fruition. At this point, the HRA has approved the expansion of the tax
increment district to include Sheffield area and also has committed to HRA tax levy.
I cannot stress more, that though this is an interim budget, the City is committing financial obligations
in that funds have already been authorized for development expenditures. Further, should no tax
increment, reserves come about, or future grant opportunities are successful, or land sale/development
fee projection occur, then the HRA levy and liquor fund reserves will be fully obligated.
6) Future Public Hearing
The City Council posed a specific question relevant to a public hearing or town meeting on the status
of the development and the financing efforts to date. The May 23rd City Council action item deals
more specifically with the approval of an interim budget and the actual expansion of the CBD tax
increment district. It has been suggested that another public hearing be conducted at which citizens
will be briefed to the specific financing obligations of the City and a specific development plan for
the neighborhood. In my opinion, another public hearing may be beneficial, but the Council does have
to provide final direction and answers to some or all of the above items.
cb
4-600 BLOCK
PIERCE & FILLMORE STREETS
14'
47TH F6o'-l-- ~3' I ~3'--!
4654
4648
4642
4636
4630
4624
4618
4610
4606
4600
4601
46TH
4624
.,Int.., ~vt t't-',
i,"~,6oo
',. ", ",\ ~ I
\
AVENUE
AVENUE
4655
4643
4637
4631
4625
4619
4613
4607
4601
! I
CITY
CONTROLLED
PROPERTIES
~,~e,~t~eeee~.. UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT m~
P~erty~um~ 4648--4650 Pierce S~r~t ~ C,ty ~a ~zgn~ ~te ~ z~ 5542~
L~t~. Of N ~' Og S 240' Of L. 11, BI.1 ~..~,o~ Z~"b~. ~nty
~rmnt ~ ~S. ~nald ~ ~nt: ~ ~ ~ T~nt ~ ~ant
~ct Ty~ ~ ~D ~ ~m (HUD/~ ~) ~A$ /~.
~m~ ~ffield's ~i~sion ~p~e ~T~
Sale Pdce $ ~ Date o~ Sale !~ De~r~m a~d $ amou~ d b,y~ ch~es/Cmsce~ lo be prod by .el~
A~dress 590 40th Avenue N~, Oolumbia HL~., l~l 5~lZ1
Address 4230 Central Avenue I~, Columbia l~cs, I~ 55421
Note: ~ and the r~ill compolitfen o~ the neighbodlood lrl not appraisal flctorl.
Neig~lX~OOdboundermsandcharacterletcs: 45th Ave on south~ 47th Ave on the north, Johnson St. on the east,
Ave. on the west. An area of post NW2 doubles, a~)~s, and single family res.
Fm that Ifbct the marke~bility et the propmtie$ in the neiohborlx~. (proximity to . .e?31~yment ard a.?nitle~,employ.ment stability, a ,l:N~eal to .r~ark~.. etc.):
nave creace~ a negaczve ~mpacc on ex, scrag ~uplexes
in ~articular. [~cation is convenient to high schonl, 9fade school, hall fields, and
at 45th-46thr vest of ;otmson). Bus service on Central Ave.
- ~ II CIIta o~ competitive properties for ~ale in the neighborhood, description of the prevalence of Isles and financing concessions, etc.):
has been slow in this area due to deferred maintenance on sc~e properties
do not move very fast in spite of good lo~
Im I~lDe (If
~ ~ ~at~ f~lit~s:
115 IT~r~ ~lrly
6~9~ ~. ft. ~L~ ~Yes ~ I~ze 'S~ndard lot
~t~ a~ R-3 ~eral Residential Sha~ R~ten~lar
~: ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ (ex.in) v~ Simllar ~pl~:
I ~/~r ~nc~te
FE~
Is~t ~ts ~ ~ ~ FE~ ~ C ~ ~te 9/29/?8
~ ~. ~[~h~n~. ~HI ~s~s. ~Am~. ~1 ~ ~1 ~q~ z~ ~. ~.):
GENERAl. ~S~H,P~ ~N EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION FOUNDATION BASEMENT INSULATION
~o. elu.~ __ Fouamt~. Conc. blk. Sleb AmaS~.Ft 1056 Ro~
No. of Stode8 __ Exteno~ Walls STUCCO O'awl Space % F,n~hed Celing
Ty~e (Def./Att) __ Ro~ Surface Basement ~11 Cemng Walle
Deeign (Styfe) Gutfe~ & Dwn~ol8. G, ]: · SumD Pum~ Walls Floo~
Ex~ting/Pml~md __ Wmdew Ty~e Darnl~em~ FIo~ No~e
Age (Yr~) -- Slorm/Scmens CC)I~, Settlement Outside Entry Ualm0wn --
Manufactured House Infestation
Ama Scl Ft
Finished area above grade col~ain~: 9 Rooms; 5 Bedroom(s);
Beth(s);
~Quam Feet el Gross L~ng Ama
IN/bPJOR Materials/Condition
Feom Opt & oak/good
w~ Plaster/average
T.m/~ Wood/varnish
BemF~x Oar. tile
Sa~ VV~,ac~ Cer. tile
HEATING
Ty~e FA
Fuel C~:~S
KITCHEN EQUIP.
Refrigerator []
Range/Oven ~
Fan/I-kx)d
Microwave
ATTIC
None
Stairs
Drop Stair
Scuttle
Floo~
Heated
AMENITIES
~E~ Fim¢iace(s) a 0
Patio __
Deck
F~cl~
BF~e
Condili~n Wa~her/I)ye~ F,nished F""J Pkg. pad 20 X
A~dit~lal features (special en~gy efficient items e L: ) __c~d_e~_ attic insulation, kitchen r'eerxleled.
~tral Air units added in 1991. Parking pad.
Ccwldition el the irnDro~a~mefll$. ~lepmc~t~on (physical. functional, and external), reDa.rs needed. Quahly of construction, remodeling/addd~)ns, e~c.:
External or locational obsolesence due to the
CAR STORAGE:
Garage · el cars
Attached
I~Jilt-ln
Carp(xt
Never (' 89)
and in 1993 is $63,800.
Adveme mnvh<mmentat condit~ns (such as. ~ not 'i~. ired, to. hez, l~r~ wa~te~, t~xJC ~ub~tanc~..etc lgrese~ in the~a~(~{q_.ihe~e~ in the
immediate vtctnity el the ~ubject De'ooerty: I~e zn ].mme~late vzc~n~y .oz stuo3ect. 'mere %fas lan
Keyes Park, but that land is below sub3ect grade.
Frm:l~e MIC Form 70 6-93
12 CH PAGE t OF 2 FIn,~e ~ Fm'm 1004 (6-9~
01993 Fomtl and Womll~ Inc.. 315 Whdney AI~. New Hlve.. CT 06511 I (~001 24.~4S4~ Itel Il ] t t 920
v.~...,.,~.,, UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT
IEST,,TEOSrrEWLUE 6900. S.r. ~'.50 ........ $ 17,250 C~.~.,. o. C.~t ,~o,~ ~,,~..s..,~.~
ES~TED RE~CTION ~ST-NEW-~ IMPROVEMENTS: site val~. ~m ~ ~t~ ~ f~ HUD,
~li~ 1056 ~ Fte S 58 - s 61,250
eshmated remaifli~ ~ life ~ t~
~~'FtGS~. 38,250 ~st data fr~ ~raiser ~alys~'s Bldq.
~/~ O ~F{.S 0 - ~ _ ~ildi~ ~s ~ eff~i~ aoe of 20 yrs.
~T~~ ............. -S1~,~ _ ~tal ~n~ic life is a~t 65 yrs.
~ 3~ ~, ,2~,e,.~ _ ~0/65 = ~. $55.50/sf +1.~ stu~ +
~~~ ................ . S 51,250 ~5$/sf.
W"~'~-~-~ ~.'. ~d.,..~- s 1,5~
~ JN~D ~ aY c~ ~oacH ........... - s 70, ~
~ ~M J ~E~ ~LE NO. ~ ~M~BLE ~. 2 ~M~B~ NO. 3
~8/46~ 4539 Et[~re St. ~ 4535 ~y[or S~ ~ 453~ ~[e~ S~
~/~.~ S ~ ~ S 33.18 ~....~_2~;; S 31.59 ~ .... S 36.58
.:...:.: 1,~ ~nus -1~ ~ Fin. I ~ ~v fin. I =
/T~ ~:..~'-;.~'., ;.', 5-28-93 , = 1-15-~ , = 9-1~92 ~ +1~
~ffields ~effields [ = ~effields I = ~ffiglds { =
~ ~ S~ard S~ndard i= S~ndar~ = Standar4 { =
~ v~ ~pl~s ~lems [ = ~pl~es ] = ~pl~4pl~ =
A~rage A~raqe ,, = A~rage t = Average , =
34/~0 35/25 i+2~ 34/30 { ~ 35/20
, , ~ ' , , :
~~ 9 I 5 I 2 9 i 5 i 2 = 9 , 5 , 2, , ,' = 10:6 12~ =
~ ~ ~ A~ 1~/195~. Ft 1056/195~. Et ~8/167~. Ft. 950/~. Ft.
~iF~ Incl. in I~1. in ~ = Incl. in [ = Incl. in : =
~~G,~ ~r ~i% lower ~it ~ lo~r ~it " lo~r ~it ,
~ Fu~ ~my A~rage A~raqe I = A~rage [ = A~rage ~ =
~"~ ~ GF~ ~ +2~ OF~o ~ +20~ OF~ I +2~
~ E~ E~ ~ ~ f~I~ Standard : +2~ S~dard ~ +2~ Standard ~ +2~0
~z~ ~/~4 I No = ~ : = 2 ~1. ~r. I 5~
~ ~ Rent/~lu, 11~ + 56.68 ~ 47.11 i 95.20
Commen~ on Sales Comea~isoo (mClucli~ t~ ~bect Drooerty's comDah~lily ~ t~ ns~gh~rhood, elc.k ~lere are other duplexes sold
one unit at or slightly below
I did not side side units with basements
I also within the Sheffield area.
I[%~M SU[~JEC~ GOMPAP~aLE NO. , COMPARABtE NO. 2 CO~PARAaLE NO. 3
m~,P~ Not listed No sale within the No sale within the No sale within
lm~,~ nor sold in prior 12 months prior 12 months the prior 12 m~nths.
An~ el any cunent aomemeflt o~ ~ale, ~. o~ I~ of ~ ~ ~ty a~ a~5 d a~ ~ ~s 0f ~t
eff~t for sale of subj.. It is ~ t~t t~ City. s
in this bl~k.
~D ~ ~ ~S C~ A~ROACH.. 1100
~~: ~ ~ is the a~raqe of data fr~ similar ~les ~s~ t~t t~ pro~rty is free of liens or entrants.
F~-~: ~ 3 appr~s reset in a fairly similar ~lue.
~ ~r~t and in~ (~st ~s ~al ~ ~r~t).
The purlx)~e ol Ibis a0¢reisal is Io eslm~ete the market value ol Ihe real 13~oOefly thai is the SUbleCt of Ih~ reporl, based on the al3ove condd~ons and the ceflilcation, contingefll
and limillng conl~loas, and learkel vakJe delmlbon Ihal a~e slated ,n lhe attached Freddie Mac Fo~m 439/Fanne Mae From 1004B (Revised
I (WI) ESllMATE 114E MARKET ~RLLE. AS OEFINED. O~ THE REAL PROPERTY TNAT IS TNE SUBJECT OF THIS R~PO~, ~ ~ April
(WHICH IS ~ I~ OF INSPECnON AND.~E EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS REPORT) TO BE $ 71 ~ 000
APPRAISER: [.,~.~/; /) /~ //~~ SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (ONLY IF REQUIRED):
Name Malcolm 0.- W~i~on Name
DateP~o~tS~oe~ April 6, 1994 0ate~e~xl$~.e0
State Ce~i~at~. · 4000369 State b~q ~t~te C~rti~t,~. · .
State Or State License · State
Fredclm Mac Fo~m 70 6-93 12 CH PAGE 2 OF 2 Fanme Mae Ftxm 1004 I6-93
~1993 F~m$ ~ Worm&~ Inc., 315 Whib~ey A,~.. New Halm, n, CT 0~511 1 (~00) 243-4545 ! tam ~ ! t 1920
UNIFORM RESIDENTIAl. APPRAISAL REPORT Fib No.
~o~a"y~m~ess4619-21 Fillmore St. N.E. c,ycolumhia Heights state MN Z~Cod. 55421
LegalDeacd~tica.~O ~0' of N 120' ~t 13 & S 60' of N 120' of W 25' ~t 14 ~i~ds ~ ~tv
~',~mm~. 25-30-24-34-0050 TaxVear 1994 RE TaxesS2079.88 ~'~s~,$ 0
Cur~nt ~r Vacant
~oRct Type ~m~n~m (HUD/VA only) ~A$ /Mo
~ = ~ ~ ~fi~ ' s ~v~ion ~ ~e 4B-18 ~. Tr~ }~4
~reas4230
i LTr " []Urban ' [] S~ur~:~[] Rura, Predominant "' Smgte temily ~ousing PrSaer~t land use %' .and use change
I-~O~ 75% [] 25-75% ~. 25% ~c~.nc. .(OO0,~ICE ,Y.IA~E ~ family 20 ~t ,,~,y ~ Likely
Note:. ~ INI the ,lt..lei comlx~Rlon of the neighborhood ara not apprailel factorl.
' _Ne~;~=o~no~t~3u~da_ nesar~cha,acte~m~s: 45U~ Ave. O~ South, 47th Ave. on the t~3rt_h, Johnson St. on 'c.he East
a~ Ceatral Aven~e on the Nest. N~ a=ea of p3st t.Z~I doubles, ar~cs., and sinc. ile family, res)cl.
Facto~ that affect the nmrketebilit, (oroximd and amemt~es, etc.).
[ocaticml ~s c~venient to high school, ~rade school, ball an area
at 45th-46th, ~st to Johnson). Bus service on Central Avenue.
Mlfk~ ~-~,'~icm~ m the lUbjecl neighlx)n'~x)d (inciud~g ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ ~t~ to t~ ~ ~ ~ v~s, ~1~. ~ ~i~ ti~
~h ~ data on for sale in the neighbor~od, descr,pt,on of the prevalence of asles and financing concessions, etc ):
~k~ ~ ~ ~ ~ue ~ d~ ~t~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~ ~ ~e ~ fast ~ ~ite of g~, l~age ra~.
I~ 1~l~31~tltlOI1 ~ I~JDI (If appl~7,able) - - Is the developer/builder ,n CO~ (~ the Home Owners' Assooat~on (HOA)? [] 'Yea [] No
AO{xoximate lot, al number o~ umts m the sublect profect ~ A~fxoximate to{al number of umts for sale in the sublect I:~ofect [~
Describe commoa e~m~ente and re~eat~nal fac,ht~es.
o~,mem ~Q' X 126' ]Topography F~irly level site
s~m 7.560 sauare feet ~L~Yes ~
~ez~~t~.~ R-2 General Residential
~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t use ~ Ot~r ~e (e~,n) V~ S~ d~l~]
~1~ ~ ~ ~ ~-s~e I~ Iy~ Publ= ~ivate ~ ~ Av~a=e
S~m ~ ~ I Alley Pav~ ~ ~ I FEMA Map ~. 270n~n-nnns-~
~ (a~t ~ ~ts. ~r~h~nts. s~l as~ss~ts, sl~e areas, i1~1 ~ ~gal ~;~m~ z~,~ ~. etc.)'
No adverse eas~en/s apparent or of record--see "Survey Sheet"
i GENERAL DESCRIPTION EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION FOUNDATION BASEMENT INSULATION
No.o~ Un~ 2 Foundation (~onc. Blk. Sab Area Scl Ft 1056 Roof __ []
No. c~ st~.. 2 El(tenor WWIs St%.~ C~'awl S~oace % Fmsshed 80 Ceil)fig -- []
Ty~e (n/Att.) Detach P~ ,~],face _Asph. Sh~l. aasemenl FUll C.~,,,ng Walls []
De~g. (StWm Duplex Gat~s & ~w.spts G. I. su,~ Pump wa,s Fbor --
Ex~ng/Pmeosed Exist. Wi.dow ly~e Dbl. ~ Dampness Fioo~ None []
~e" (Y~) 34 Storm/Screens C~bi~atio~ ~ettmment Outs~e Entry
Eff~e age {Ye.) ~ Mam~actured House Intestat~
R(~ FO~ U%4~g [~ning KNchen Den Famdy Rm Rec Rnl Bedrooms · Baths Laundry Other
~ 1 1 2 1 1 850 fin.
Firfiahed area above grade coatain~: Rooms; Bedroom(s): 2 Bath(s); 1008/190Q S~uare Feet of Gross Living Area
INTERIOR M~tefiaM/Condition HEATING KITCHEN EQUIP. ATTIC AMENITIEs CAR STORAGE: .
NFIo~ Cpt . ~ TYPe FA, Refr'retor ~No'la ~;F~eo~'s)w 0 ~
[] wa~ P]~stm:/Rve~ac~e Fuel ~ Range/Oven Stars Patio Garage · of cars
I~ Trlm/Finilh Wooc~V~$h Condff~ D:sposal Droo Stair J Deck Attached
[] Bath Floor Ce~a~c Tile COOUNG D~shwasher Scuffle 'Porch Detached
Doom itOl:].O~ core Othe~ ~ll M~Crowave Heated Pool Carport
Condit~n Washer/D~ye~ [--'] Finished r~ [-'1 Driveway
I Additionalfeatums(slx~'Cmtenetgyetfioentitems. etc)' Fence in back with parkinq area off alle¥~ storage
shed and patio.
average condition
~3te: Assessor's Est. ~t. Value 1991 ~s $66,500, 1992 was $67,100, & in 1993 is $60,300.
~ IllVlr0nmentel conditionl (~uch a~, but not hm,ted to. hazardous wastes, toxic ~ubatances. etc.) i~xesenl in the mtprovementa. O~ the ~te. or in the
immediate vicinity of the lubject I~0~ly.: ]~:)ne ~ i~m~c~i.ate vicinity of Subject.
Fre~(]i~ MIC Form 70 6-93 12 CH PAGE I OF 2 I=enme ~ Form 1004 ~6-~
Glg93 Forms and Wo,m~ Inc.. 315 Wh.~ey A'~., New Haven, CT 065~, ~ f,00) 245-4545! t em # ! I ] 920
V. tudlo, k dte. UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT F,,,o.
ESlIMATED SHE VALUE .7.~)0..~;~r 50/S:[ ....... $ 18 o 900 Comments on Cost Ao~oach Isuch as. s~urce ol cost est,male.
ES'IIMATED REPRODUCTION COST-NEW-OF IMPROVEMENT~: sde value, square 1ool calculatK3~ and for HUD. VA and FmHA. the
Dw~d#ng 10 0 8 S~ Ft S $ = $ 5 8 · 5 0 0 ~st,mated rema~mng eCOnOmic life of the ~ro~erty):
' trcm A~raiser Analysts Building Costs as
Fin. 850 Sa. Ft4$ 45. O0
sh~, patio, fete (est)
Garige/Caq~otl -- ~. Ft ~ S .....
T~ E,~ ~t ~ ............. -S 97.750
~. 30t ~ Fu~t~al ~0~xtern~l
~ 29~325 ~ 0 / [9,550
~ ~ ~ I~nts ....... ~ $
~.e~o ~ aY COST ,..o,c. s
SU~E~
Januaz7 ir 1994.
Buildin~hasEffective~e of 20 years
Total Ecc~c~icLife is about 65years
20/65 = 30%
External due tn lowered values in
Sheffield Acres- 20%.
68
COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE NO. 3
4539 Fillmore St. N.E. 4535 Taylor St. N.E.
~N. UE N:)JUSTMENTS
Sales or Fin~
C~lc, ess~o~
Oale of Safe/Time
Lcxmtion
Lea~h~d/Fee ~
Baesmenl & Fini~h.(I
Ro~m~ Below Grade
Fu'~tlOf~l Utility
En~gy Efficient Items
G~ ragelCarl~
DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
,,~ :.~,...: .. $1,000 bonus
~ ~. :,- .... to sell, A~t =
~ ~. ' '~ 5/28/93 ,
~heffields She f fields
Fee S~mple Fee Simple
Uuplex/Fair Duplex/Fair =
Rveraqe Ave~acje , =
35/25 35/25 ' =
Average Ave~acje =
9 i 5 i 2 9 i 5 i 2 ,
1008/190~,~. m. 1056/1956~. m. -1000
Average Average , =
St:ar~--d S~d , =
bk3 ~ ~ =
Shed pa~ None ' +1000
Fe~,ce t~ , + 500
56,68
:~: - ~ + Fl-Es 1,5oo
~:~ ~!! .~: ". s 65,400
s~lect property's com~ahl~hty ~o the
1/15/94
Sheffields
Fee Single
Duplexes
Duplex/Fair
Average
34/30
+ t-t S A~lUS~mlm
' +4000
Average/FairI +5000
Yo~a~ ; ~s ', Sams
948/1678 sq Ft. +1000
,ower Unit =
Average
Standard
4532 Tyle~ St. N.E.
M.L.S.
DESCRIPTION J + (.) S Adtuslmem
~ ,
9/10/92 i+~O0
Shef fields J
~es S~ple
~ Duplex/4 ple~,
Average i =
! - ooo
Average ,
11o:612 ,
19 o/19oo . ,.i
+1000
Fence. eoa~ ee. NO + 500
47.11 =
~ - Il-is n,5oo
,. s 64~500
Adj. (to,al)
A(~uefed Salel Pdce
Comparabfe
~m ~ ~ ~ (,.ckx~ the
werage : =
2 Dbl.Gar. : -5000
~ : +1000
NO ! + 500
95.20
~ · F~-is 4,5oo
ne,ghOorhooa, etc) There are other duplexes
the area, but I took only the split entry type with one unit at or
below round level and the other above. I did ~o_t__c~nsider side by
i. ide units with basements below each nor double bungalows. I also stayed
the Sheffield area.
'GMM ~S the' sellinq p~.ice ~ monthly rent
ITEM J SUBJECT J COMPARABLE NO. 1
~,,~,,,~,,., J~.~. J prior 12 months
Subject is like
COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE NO. 3
NO sale ,,,d.thin the NO sale within the
~rior 12 m~nt~ prior 12 months
'NO durre~t agreement in e~ect for sale o= suD]ec=s.
~:ity is a~tampelng ~o acquire all duplexes in this block.
,,~C~EDV~UJE.~ESCOMP~SONAP"O~H ............................................... ~a''~--$
~irl~AT~._D ~1 i ~ ~ iNCOME APPROACH jif .An,.d~=~ Esfi~t~ Ma[kef Rerd S 1100 /~. X ~oss Refit ~lt~
It is assumed that the property is free of liens or encumbrances.
~~: All three approaches result in somewhat similar values. I would
give greatest weight to Market Approach to value.
T~ ix,tlx~e Gl ~his aporam~ ia to eatimate the mark~ value el the mai I~0edY Ihat is the subiect 01 ~ ~' ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t~ ~t~
~x~indingceeddi~nc~madcMva~ed~maien~hatamstated~n~hea~tac~dF¢e<XheMacF~rm439/F~F~m~4B~-~1 29 {994
('tWllCtl IS THE ~ OF INSPECTION ANO I'~.E EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS REPORT) TO BE $ ·
b:3,, UUU
APPRAISI~R: /~J. ~ /9 ~ /'~i/'j~.,~._ SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (ONLY IF: REQUIRED): [] O~ [] D~d NOI
[;~te ~ Skmed Date Report SCned
[,tale C~ltf'?~,t~'~ · 40003 69 ~tate [v[~ State C, ertil,cat~)n · State
(:~ State Lk~-,~e · [~tale O~ State bcense · ~tate
r*e4d~l NIIc Fol'm ?0 ~-93 12 CH PAGE 2 OF 2 Far, me Mae Imm 1004 16-93~
O1993 FMml Ind Wol'ms~ Inc., 315 Whitney A'm.. New HMn, CT 06Sll 1 (800) 243-4S45 ! t em # I l I 920
UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT
Pmpen~Addmaa 4631--33 Fillmnre St. N,E, C~ol.mbia' Heiqht~ smm MN 7Jpco~ 55421
S 60' of ~ ~ & S 60~ of W 26' ~ ~ B~ 1 ~F~I~ ~Y ~oka
~. 25-30-24-34-0050 Tax~ 1994 RE. Ta~s$ 2106.74 ~,~,m$ 0
~City of Columbia Heiq~ ~/J~ce ~ ~: ~r ~T~ ~ ~m
~ ~m ~ ~ F~ Si~ ~ I ..~ ~ T~ ~ ~D ~ ~imum (HUD/VA ~) ~A$ N.A. /~*
~ = ~ ~ef~-l~'s ~VJ~ ~p ~emme 4B-18 ~Tr~ 514
~ S NA ~d~ NA ~S~~/~~W~ NA
Patrick Hentges,City Mgr. A~m~ 590 40th Avenue N.E., Col~abia Heights, ~ 55421
~ Malcolm O. Watson a~maa 4230 (~eral Avenue N.E. t Ool~abia
Location ~U~ ~ ~~r~ ~in.nt ~S,~) (y~) ~,~i~ .~
~ ~ ~ ~ 75~ ~ 25-75% ~ U~ 25~ I ~' ~ ~E
~ ~ ~ S~ ~ I ~ ~L~ 25 12-4~i~ 60
~fi~ ~3~ 3-6~6~-I ~(~5%)
les ~Ol
~: ~ i~ ~ =1 ~ d ~ ~ am ~ ~1 f~
~~~~45~ve. ~ ~ 47~. ~ ~~r ~n SI. ~ ~ ~
~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s in ~ ~ (~xim~ ~ e~ a~ ~s. ~ ~1~, a~ ~ ~, ~c.}:
a~ 45~46~ ~ ~ 3nhn~). ~ ~ ~ ~
Heiqhtst Y~q 55421
land usa change
'-]in Ixoceaa
__ TO: Single Family
- ~uch aa data on competitive properties for sale in the neighborhood, description of the prevalence of sales and financing concessions, etc.):
do not move very fast in se.ire of ~ood low ~aqe ~ates.
I--lyes [-~No
A~ximate t~ number of units in the subjeof Ixoject
_~--~_-~i~ ~C.T.T,~ el~ a~ i%~__~-,,~al facilities:
[~me.~ma 60' X 125.7 & 125.83
amaea 7,546 sq,,are feet Comer Lol ['--I Yes ['~INO
Spec~czo~ngdaa~ficafionanddsac~mn R-3 General Residential
~h~ ~e
~1~ ~ ~ ~-~ Iw~-~ Ty~ ~ ~a~
Topography Fairly level si~e
S~e S~r~lard ]cfc
~m~ Positive to St/Alley
vmw Similar duplex/Schools
La~a~ Average
Ome~ay sum~e Parkinq pad-Oc~crete
FEMA Z~e "C" M~ ~ 9/29/78
FEMA Map No. 270010-0005-B
NO adverse easements apparent or of record--see "Survey Sheet".
GENERAL DESCRIPTION EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION FOUNDATION BASEMENT INSULATION
No. of Units 2 Foundation Ck:a'~.Blk. Slab . AmaSq. Ft. 1008 Roof __
NO. ~ ~ ~ Exterio~ Walls ~ Crawl Space. % Finished 85 Ceiling --
Ty~e(Det./Att.) D-~ch RoofSudace Asph. Shql. Basement . FU.]..1 Ceiling Plaster w~is __
De~m(StWe) Duplex Gu,e,s&Owna~s.G.l. sum~pu~.__ w~ p_l..~2r,_ F_kxx __
Existing/Prolx~ed Exist. WidOw Type Dbl. Hunq Da~me~ . -- F~o, Tile/Cazq ~ __
Age (Ym.} T Storm/~ 02111b~'lliO ~ettleme~t . -- lOut side Entry Yes Unlmown __
Effective Age (Yrs.) 2 0 IVan, ,e~,red I-k~ ,~ Infestation I
ROOMS I ~ I L~ngI ~.,ng I~,c'. ID~ I;,m,~R..lRec. R~.l~roo.~ .B~,,. IL. and.,I C'.~ I '~'~"
-'~,--,~l I1 I I i I I I I 2 I 1 I1 I I~.5°
~.~, I I i I I i I I I I 3 I I I I Ioo8
Finiahed ama _-__~3~__ grade contains: 9 Rooms; 5 Bedroomls); 2 Bath( ' / Feet
INTERIOR Materials/Condition HEATING KITCHEN EQUIP. ATTIC AMENITIES I CAR STORAGE:
Flon~ CDt & ~k/Gooc] Tyoe FA Refrigerator [~J]None [] Fi~ace{s)e__O DlNone []
VValm Plaster/Average Fuel ~ RBnge/Oven~lsmi,, LJ Patio 12 X 18 IXllC~rq,'
ondition Washer/Dr~' ~ Finished [-- [l/~
Condition of the imp/ovements, deomciation (physical, functiom]l, and external), tel)mrs needed, Quality of conatructio~, remodeling/additions, etc.: is in averaqe condition.
Adveme envkonment~ condit~na (such aa, but not limited to, hazan~ous wastes, tox~ substances, etc.) pmsant in the impn~enents, on the s~e, ~ in
immediate vicinity of the subject lxoperty.: None in imm.~ia+. '!c!nity of Subj--ct.
Mae Form 1004 (6-93)
Freddie Mac Fora1 70 6-93 12CH , PAGE 1 OF 2
~1993Fotms end W~tm~lnc.,315%~ilneyA~..NawHl~en. CT0~511 1 (SIX)) 243-4545 Itee Jill920
c~
ESTIMATED SrrE VALUE 7546..@$2..50.. Crc~n~d~s
]-8( ~0_O Comments on Cost A4~roach (such as, source of co~
~te va~e, squme foot cak~dat~n and for'HUD, VA and FmHA, the
as of 3anuary i, I994.
_~,ild~r~ has Effecti~ Se of 20 years
Total ~concmic Life is about 65 y~s
20/65 = 30%
ESTIMATED REPRODUCTION COST-NEW-OF IMPROVEMENTS:
Dwelling 1008 Sq. Ft~$ 58.00=$ 58;464
__= 1_. 000
Ga~ge/Ca~x~ NA Sq. Ft ~ $ NA = 0
To~ Es~mmd C~t N~ ............. -$ 97.- 7] 4
L~ 30% Ph~a~ Fu~
Dep.~a~. 29,314 I [19,543 = $--48,857
De~mcmmd ~ of ~.P~m ................ =
"As-m" ~ of
UEM I SUBJEC~
4631-33 Fill~e
~,=~ St. NE Col. Hts.
VALUE
Sales o~ Financing
Da~ d S~elTime
S~e
V~
Deagn and ~?~
Quality of C.,~,.ct~on
Above Grade
Room Coum
Gross Living Area
ROO,T,~ Bek~w Grade
F~,, ~,~u, ,al Utility
DESCRIPTION
Er~gy E;~-,t ~
Pom~, P~, Deck.
F;,--.:- ~.s), etc.
Pool, etc.
*(~tVl
Adjustecl Sales Price
COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE NO. 2
4539 F!]]~e St. N.E. 4535 Tayl~ St. N.E.
1
33.18
M.L.S.
DESCRIPTION + (-1S t,J~,i,,~;
~l,000bonus
COMPARABLE NO. 3
4532 Tyl~ St. N.E.
M.L.S. M.L.S.
+ (-I S Aak~l,,~,! DESCRIPTION I + (') S ~.~u~;,~
DESCHiP¥~.3N
' I 95.20 '
;. 68 ' 11
1000
of com~arat~e
Comments on Sales Comparison (including the subject i)rope~y's compatibilily to the neighborhood, etc.): ~r~heze are o~Je~ dupl~mes sold in
the area~ ~ I too~ only the _~nl~t ent~ type ~rith ~e unit at c~ slightly below ground
level a~d the O~h~r ~ _~3ve. I ~8 not co~s4,%~- B~- b~ siR- units with bas~¥:.t~ ~l~w
nor d~3hle h~-.~lnws. I ~1~,~.'~ stayed within the S _he_¢fi-l~ a~
*~4 is the ~=111ng ~rice ~ u--,y~thly re~t. Subject most like #1 @56.68
I n~r sold ~n pri~r 12 ~ths pri~ 12 ~nths
S~.k,~s ~p9~__t-12 prior 12 m0~tbs
No c~t a~-~-,~nt in effect for -~le of subiect. It is knc~ that the City zs
- = $ 67. 500
~ Re~$ .LU~ /MO x ~r~s~enzMu~
~'"fs ~s~-Umed that the property is free of lzens or encumbrances. ,,
F~R~: All three approaches result in a somewhat s~m~lar value. I would
give the ~reatest weight to Market Approach to value.
aiq ............. ~-~-~ ~ oft~s based on the abo~ c~ and~e~L~- C~,u~t
B ~~~ va~e..~oo~a, am.tedin~e a~edFmdd'Mac Fo~439'Fannm MaeF°rm ,004B{Rev~ed~..
mtwc/~o.~.b .,~ .............. , OF ~HE REAL ~Cq
~,~ m~ ~ OF ~SPEC~ON ANO ~4E EFFEC~VE DATE OF ll~S REPORt) TO BE $ "~ ' '" -
~ ' ........... F -£-- -~_ -- ~;5 .~Y- ~ SU~R~SO~ APPRAISER (ONLY IF REQUIREDN
~Nan~ Malcolm- O. Watson Name ms~e~P~er~
~OamReoo~S~ned May 11, 1994 Oateaeoo. Sened
State Rtat~ CertU~cabon · State
State Or State License · ~tate
Fanme Mae Form 1004 (6-9~
12CH. PAGE 20~ 2
Fmdd~ Mac Form ?06-93 ' n CT~11 1 243-4~45 ztem #ttt920
MAY
May 12, 1994
Mr. Pat Hentges
City Manager
City of Columbia Heights
590 40th Avenue N. E.
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Via FAX To (218) 829-9188
Dear M~Hentges:
Our objective is to assist the coundl in determining and implementing alternatives
which will significantly impact the problems that face the Sheffield Neighborhood
because of deteriorating housing.
The balance between city initiatives and ultimate private sector assimilation is delicate
and can not be left to evolve passively. The steps taken by the city have been dramatic
and decisive. To continue, Columbia Heights must move swiftly and with purpose or
the current efforts will succumb to the ongoing decay that grips the Sheffield
Neighborhood today.
For the meeting on the 23rd of May we will develop an initial assessment and propose
a direction for council consideration and action. The enclosed Report Outline sets out
our current thinking (and alludes to a couple of new ideas that we think may impress
the council).
Give us a call with your questions or suggestions.
CEO/President
MAY-12-1994 11:25
Suite 330
7101 York Avenue South
Edina, Minnesota 55435
Telephone 612.921.3393
Fax 921.3299
P.O1
Suggested Report Outline
Quam, Sumnicht and Associates, Inc.
1. Brief analysis of the pros and cons of the eight options
a. Discuss the implications of redevelopment alternatives for 4600 block
b. Analyze the relationship of the companion incentive programs for owner
reinvestment
c. Suggest a new 4600 block option, that mixes the best of two alternatives
2. Discussion of elements required to optimize private sector development
a. Developing community interest and commitment
b. Acknowledging private sector need for financial return
c. Involving the financial community and the CRA
d. Stimulating market value improvement throughout the community
3. Outline of implementation steps for the Sheffield Neighborhood
a. Elements of the program focus in strategic order
1) Strategy for 4600 block
2) Strategy for scattered site city owned duplexes
3) Purchase strategy for eliminating worst homes in neighborhood
4) Help for property owners wishing to transform market obsolete
properties
b. Guidehnes for implementation and timing of the Planning Study
1) Ways to access neighborhood character potential
a) Creating workable covenants and development requirements
b) Establishing design criteria for new and transformation
construction
c) How code enforcement can play a significant role
2) How prototype development can be implemented
a) Avenues to gathering designs and developing work plans
b) Possible steps toward initial construction alternatives
c. Key publidty and public relations factors
1) Determining what issues will impact promotional efforts
2) How publicity may redirect development components
3) What may be required for promotional efforts
4. Relating these strategies to future city wide programs
~AY-~2-~994 ~:24 95% P.02
April 20, 1994
Mr. Patrick Hentges
City Manager
City of Columbia Heights
590 40th Ave. N. E.
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Dear Mr. Hentges:
QSA has taken a leading role in helping Richfield design and develop its new
resident/lender incentive program called "Transformation Homes". The enclosed
Saturday Homes cover story from the April 16, Star Tribune features a prototype home
that QSA reconstructed in cooperation with the HRA.
This program's recent implementation begins the second phase of "Richfield
Rediscovered", a concept that I introduced while I was Richfield's mayor (1987-89).
In 1990, QSA was created to provide the "private side" support required to start
market-driven suburban housing and development programs. Columbia Heights has
been identified in our action plan as an ideal target community.
We would like to discuss with you how you could create and market a program of
incentives that could help Columbia Heights revolutionize its future as a marketable
residential community.
! will call you in the next week to see if you would like a visit.
Steve Quam
Principal
Suite 3,30
7101 York Avenue South
Edin~ Minnesota 55435
Telephone 61Z921 3393
Fax 921.3299
o ~
t-- (D
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Telephone ; . ,,E, ngineers
612/476-6010"::. '~' ?" Planners
61;~/,~7,~-85~2 'FAX' "--'
April 29, 1994
Mr. Patrick Hentges, City Manager
City of Columbia Heights
590 40th Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota 55421
782-2810
782-2801 - fax
SUBJECT:
Sheffield Neighborhood -
Stabilization/Redevelopment Planning
MFRA #9999
Dear Mr. Hentges:
This letter is written following our meeting on April 28, 1994.
The meeting with you and Donald Schneider including a "windshield
survey" served as a productive orientation to the issues of neighborhood
stabilization and/or redevelopment.
This letter responses to your May 2, 1994 time line and is intended
to provide a "beginning point" and perhaps stimulate additional
discussion concerning the City's continued work toward the
stabilization/revitalization of the Sheffield neighborhood.
The issues are complex, however, the fact that the City has
undertaken the acquisition of most properties within the block defined
by Fillmore and Pierce Streets and 47th & 46th Avenues, is in reality
the most significant step forward in revitalizing the area. The second
step in the long-term process involves decisions regarding land use
(residential housing type) and the formulation of Design Development
Parameters which will "insure" neighborhood integrity in the resulting
built environment. To approach a reasonable response to the question,
we have proposed the City undertake a Land Use and Site Desiqn Study
which will substantially finalize decisions regarding Land Use and the
Design Development Standards, which presumably will enhance and
complement the neighborhood without encumbering specific properties or
any future redevelopment of the area beyond market expectations. The
following is a list of work tasks which would facilitate the preparation
of a Design Development Program which will serve as a City wide
"showcase":
Confirm the appropriateness of residential uses for the
property by considering the comparative advantages of single-
family detached and attached housing alternatives. This
initial Land Use confirmation step will consider detached
homes, townhomes, and clustering concepts considering the
An Equal Oppodunity Employer
Mr. Patrick Hentges
April 29, 1994
Page Two
topographic relief, and neighborhood context (existing and
future). The importance of this approach is to consider
various housing alternatives objectively.
Identify a list of housing design characteristics which
provide variety and avoid monotony and redundancy (this will
include a pallet of exterior building materials, roof slopes,
decks, porches, patios, building elevations, facade deviation,
and roof line details such as; gable ends, dormers, skylight,
pitches).
0
Identify a list of site design considerations which emulate
higher quality residential neighborhoods; identify elements
such as; walkways, fences/screening, driveway design
standards, foundation plantings, specimen tree plantings,
ornamental plantings, accent gardens, etc.
e
Determine minimum site floor area
(percent) garage standards, side,
setbacks, and lot width requirements.
ratio, site coverage
rear and front yard
Se
Determine and verify the most appropriate home sites within
the subject block and determine realistic floor plan, i.e.,
full basement versus tuck-under or walk-out floor plan or side
entry split foyer. Determine to the extent practical garage
locations and preferred access whether from a public street,
alley or alternative location. Also determine under various
development schemes the appropriateness of the existing alley,
face-to-face with garage location and home orientation.
e
Prepare Draft Design Development Guidelines for new
construction and rehabilitation sites. Establishing optimal
requirements to achieve the apparent goals of neighborhood
revitalization, including architectural, landscape
architectural and pedestrian and vehicular access
considerations.
e
Prepare a draft Request For Proposals for consideration as one
alternative to selecting specific builder/developers.
The crux of this study is to provide a forum through an the use of
a consultant to create a set of criteria and guidelines which will
facilitate bringing to fruition the expected revitalization of older
residential areas in the City of Columbia Heights.
We recognize that such a study is process oriented and that the
completion of the work is evolutionary in nature; from initial input, to
developing consensus, to formulation of a plan, to site improvements.
Mr. Patrick Hentges
April 29, 1994
Page Three
The process of developing a useable end produce study requires input and
reaction from multiple interest. The final product, refurbished and/or
new homes, will be determined by our collective ability to identify and
determine what is ultimately visually pleasing and desirable and to
create, guidelines and standards to implement "ideal images". A
significant side issue will be to balance the ideal end results with
reality and market demand.
Because this study is intended to have considerable longevity, I
believe it will be in the best interest of the City to commit to a
number of meetings, facilitated by the consultant and City Staff, to
develop the quality and nature of standards deemed appropriate to the
revitalized neighborhood. This may involve citizen committees.
It is difficult to estimate the cost for such services, however,
for purposes of budgeting, it is conceivable that a total of six
meetings may be required throughout the life of the project with an
estimated cost of $1500. In addition, four meetings with City Staff may
be needed, estimated to cost $900. Research time, document preparation
time, and report preparation is estimated to be $1500.
With regard to personnel assigned to this project I believe it
would be essential and beneficial to approach this with a multi-
disciplined team, involving myself as a real estate development planner,
Theresa Greenfield as a Municipal Planner, Suzanne Rhees a planner with
neighborhood revitalization knowledge, and Kathy O'Connell as an
experienced Landscape Architect. My role will be to bring a broad sense
of reality and perspective to the study with Theresa and Suzanne having
experience in zoning, land use planning and performance standards and
Kathy O'Connell, an experienced and sensitive urban designer.
We look to the City to provide base map information and documents
such as zoning, to meet with the consultants and schedule meetings with
the City, landowners and other designated participants.
We appreciate the opportunity and look forward to assisting the
City in completing this important study.
Kindest regards,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
Michael J. Gair, ASLA
Principal Planner
MJG:pry
COUNTY OF ANOKA
Office of Governmental Service~ Division
GOVERNMENT CENTER
2100 3rd Avenue · Anoka, Minnesota 55303-2489
(612) 323-5680
JO ANN WRIGHT
Community Development Manager
Direct #323-5709
April 29, 1994
MEMO TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Members of the HOME Program Work Group
JoAnn Wright, Community Development Manager,~//
Report on the April 27 Meeting for the Intergovernmental and Community Relations
Committee of the County Board
Please review the attached report which will be given to the Intergovernmental and Community
Relations Committee on May 11. Please call me if you have any comments about the contents
of this report.
Again, thank you for your work on the HOME Program. I believe that the process was successful
and that all interested parties should be pleased with the outcome.
JW:
Enclosure
cc: Tom Durand, Manager, Governmental Services
FAX: 323-5682
Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer
TDD/'I-rY: 323-5289
HOME WORK GROUP REPORT
MEETING OF APRIL 27, 1994
Members Present: Lee Starr, City of Coon Rapids; Don Schneider, City of Columbia Heights;
Doris Nivala, City of Ham Lake; Grant Femelius, City of Fridley; Sylvia Frolik, City of Ramsey; and
JoAnn Wright, Anoka County
Results:
The work group used the attached evaluation form to rank the requests received from
municipalities and non-profit agencies for 1994 HOME Program allocation. The resulting
recommendation for funding will be delivered to the Intergovernmental and Community Relations
Committee of the County Board at the May 11 meeting of the Committee.
The work group noted that the Dakota County HOME Consortium comprised of Anoka, Dakota,
Suburban Ramsey, and Washington Counties are required to reserve 15 percent of the total
Consortium HOME allocation of $1,727,000, or a total of $ 259,050 for Community Housing
Development Organizations (CHDO's). Under the plan recommended by the HOME work group,
ACCAP, the only CHDO currently recognized in the four county consortium would receive $
165,176. That result means that $ 93,874 must be reserved within the consortium for CHDO use
for 24 months from the date that the funds become available from HUD. It is reasonable to expect
the consortium to allocate up to that amount for ACCAP if no other CHDO appears to request the
funding within the 24 month setaside period. This is particularly prudent given that at the end of
the 24 months any unclaimed CHDO funds would be returned to HUD for CHDO use outside of
the Dakota County Consortium. The additional allocation to ACCAP in such case would be in
addition to the 27 percent of the consortium allocation which is Anoka County's share of the 1994
HOME Program.
The work group funding recommendation is as follows:
AGENCY PROJECT DESCRIPTION P R O J E C T A D M I N
COST COST
TOTAL COST
ACCAP HUD Home Purchase/Rehab $60,000 $3,000
$63,000
Large Family, Single Room
Occupancy, or Housing for Mentally
III.
$102,176 Up to 5% $102,176
Elim Housing
Tenant Assistance Payments for Low
Income Households
$18,000 Up to 5% $18,000
RISE,Inc.
Tenant Assitance Payments for
Persons with Mental Health Issues
$19,800 Up to 5% $19,800
CEAP/ECCHO
Purchase/Rehab for Home
Ownership
$50,000 Up to 5% $50,000
City of Fridley
Neighborhood Single Family Housing
Rehabilitation
$70,000 Up to 5% $70,000
C i t y o f Sheffield
C o I u m b i a Ownership
Heights
Neighborhood Home
$120,000
Up to 5%
$120,000
Anoka County General Administration
$11,567
$11,567
Consortium
Consortium Administration
$11,567
$11,587
TOTALS
$440,156
Maximum
of $46,629
$466,290
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Public Works Department
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
PATRICK HENTGES
CITY MANAGER
ENGINEER
SHEFFIELD BLOCK REDEVELOPMENT
MARCH 24, 1994
Attached is a drawing showing existing conditions and a proposed replat of the block bounded
by 46th/47th and Fillmore/Pierce. Sixteen lots of approximately 75' width could be platted. Lots
1-7 are potentially split entry and Lots 10-16 would be walkouts.
Per your request, I've contacted a demolition contractor for an estimate to demolish the existing
buildings and prepare the site for redevelopment.
Demolish and remove buildings (including foundation),
remove existing paving (sidewalks, alley, parking
areas) and regrade (includes 800 C.Y. imported material)
Discontinue unneeded water/sewer services -
4 sets at $1,500/set
$ 67,000
$ 6,000
$ 73,000
The contractor recommended that before we bid out the demolition, the buildings should be
inspected for asbestos.
MAW:jb
94-182
Attachment
MEMO - CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
To: Pat Hentges
From:
Joe M. Voels
Date: May 1, 1994
Re: Moving of City owned duplexes in the Sheffield
Neighborhood
As of today's date I have only received two (2) proposals from
building mover contractors. Following is a brief synopsis of their
proposals (see attached copies of originals for further
information):
Qtting House Movers
Option A) Remove buildings only (no demo of basements, clean-up,
etc.)
Pay the City the sum of $7,000.00 per duplex.
Option B) Remove buildings, demo basements and infill hole (City to
disconnect all utilities - as per verbal discussions).
Pay the City the sum of $4,000 per duplex.
Dale Movers, Inc.
Option A) Remove buildings only
("fencing" not defined).
and "fence off" basements
Pay the City the sum of $27,000.00 for 20 duplexes
($1,350.00 each).
I would also like to add the following comments:
1)
I contacted eight (8) contractors requesting proposals
and verbatim every contractor voiced extreme interest.
I sent a "map" of the duplexes that were included as of
March 1, 1994 (see attached).
2)
Otting House Movers was the only contractor who returned
a proposal without further prompting (phone calls). Dale
Movers returned a proposal after a follow-up call by
myself. Two (2) other contractors have promised to send
in proposals each time I've contacted them over the last
Page 1 of 2
3)
4)
four (4) weeks, to date nothing has been received.
I would strongly recommend a detailed specification be
drawn up with definite time tables and scope of work
expectations. I would also strongly recommend a
performance bond and that liquidated damages be required
for the project. (Note: My understanding is that
liquidated damages can only be for actual loses incurred,
the courts will not recognize penalty type dollar
amounts.)
Although these requirements would probably substantially
reduce the dollar amounts that the City would receive for
the duplexes, Just trying to get proposals has indicated
that promises come much easier than action.
Whether the option of Just selling the duplexes (having
them moved) or selling them and having the same
contractor demo and infill the basements, etc. is chosen,
it will be critical that infilling (after all demo
procedures) occur immediately following the moving of the
buildings. The liability issues involving exposed
masonry, utility lines, etc. are extensive.
Actually, once work starts on raising (prepping) a
building for removal, liability issues increase
substantially.
Page 2 of 2
Otting House Movers
11640 East 275th Street
Lakeville, MN 55044
(612) 461-3265
FAX (612) 461-3262
March 30, 1994
Mr. Joe Voels
Asst. Buiiding Inspector
City of Columbia Heights
590 40th Ave. N.E.
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Dear Mr. Voels:
We dc, hereby submit our proposal to move the duplexes
ic,,zated at Sheffield's Neighborhood, between Fillmore
S'L~'ee't arid Pierce Street in the 4600 block.
1. We propose to purchase and move any or all of the
buildings at a price of $7,000 each and the city will be
re=ponsibie for the cleaning up and filling of the
basements.
2. We prop,=,se to purchase and move any or all of the
buildings for the price of $4,000 each. This proposal
includes our cleaning up the building sites, removal of
,=on,=rete, and filling the holes.
I'f She city decides to sell the buildings by sealed bid,
please let me know and I will be glad to submit my bid
at that time.
Sincerely yours,
· ' rr B. Otting, O~ne~
OTTING HOUSE MOV~.:S
WBO:jo
gUZCKUgVTRANSFER
e4/13/94 1~135 P.OI
TIt& ~-ENTRAt AVE., N. E.
DALE MOVERS, INC.
t~,~.~/ond Bond. d
MINN £APCILIg, MINN.
DiAL ir' ! ~,) 7B4.4gJ,
I~iTP.: APR/L 13, 1~24
A~t~B~7~ZOtq: JOE VOEL5 A~:
t~.~:PI: DALE E. PBTEt~,S~ AT:
(~XT'Z Ot~ C~Lt.~IBXA H~ZGTITS
AREA I:~L
, · , ·
INCLUDING THIS PAGE, THIS REPC~T CCiqSISTS OF
I~J~._.gIV,?,D, PLP~E P..AL 612-784-4269.
2 PA~S.
PROPO.qAL
DALE MOVERS, INC.
L~ ~ Bo~d~
9BI6 ~£NTgALAV[., N. [. ~INN~AP~LIg, HINN.
590 40~ &~ 1~
DtA~ t612') '7B4-4369
782-2817 782-2801 FAX CONTACT PER$08 308 VOIH.S
hereby propose co ~urn£sh all cquZp~nc and labor r.o:
fr__J~rm._% gT~S, .q~r.e_q, DRIV~AYS AND ALL I~RIS ~ lt~SP~CTXVE ,
~T~_~ FTT.T- _M_.T_. ~.ff-q ~X~! tw.ffJ~q FXX~, (~tADK Jell) ~llAPl~. ALL LCYX~
UTILITY CCHPAHXE~. -- ....
NOVE~SWILL PAYq'~- CITY eP~- St~l(~ $2,500.00.
PART II: XFMOYR~f~T.VR~Vi:~V~BUZLDINC,.qANDL~EEBASEPII~TS, 140V~S~L P/A~l~
CIT~T~SU~C~ $27,000.00.
Al1 smcerial ts Suarancaed co be as spec~gted, and Chi above.work to be performed in accord-
ance w~th chi epect~caC£ons submitted ~or chi above work end completed tn a workmanlike
~ JWOV~ · ~$ )
~=h pey~a.= ~o be made aa ~ollove:
~/~ .
Any alteration or devZaCion from above spec~f~caCZons iuvolvin8 extra costs, v~11 be execut-
ed onXy upon orders, and will become an extra charge over and above chi tscZmata. J~l aerie-
mince conctn$anC upon scrZkes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owne~ ~o catty ft~e,
tornado and other necessary ~nsurancI upon &bev& work. ~orkmen~a Compensation and ?ubliC
MOVeUI~
L~ab~l~cy Insurance on above york ~o be £urntahed by Iktle ~n~=
Respectfully submitted:
The above prices, epac~f2cac£ons and conditions are satisfactory and ace hereb~ accepted. You
are aucho~Zzed ce.do the work aa spoc$f$ed. Payment w~11 be made aa ouclteed above.
Accepted By: DICe:
.
4660
4648
4642
4636
-4630
462'1,.
4616
4612
Lw 0::' ._
4606
4600 .�
4554
4S48
�542
�S36
�534
:530 '
·516
;510
-500
J
4657 46S4 46S5-S7
4651 4648 ."'49-Si
4645 4642-44 ,4643-49
4641 4636 4637-41
4637 4630 4633 4631
46�'6
-4648-· ·-... -----
46:N-31
4630-32
4655
4643
4637
4631
1400
-II) 0\ II) 0 0 -... ...... ... ---
462S 4624
tLaJ LaJ � tC/)
4625-27 I 4624 tLaJLw�tCI)
4625 PARKVIEW
J619
4613
4607
4601
4S�-S7
4549
4543
4S35-37
: 4531
4525
4,19-21
. 4513
, 4507
4501
4618
4610
4606
4600
�556-58
4S50
4544
4S32
4524
4518
4514
4506
1133
LaJ � 0
� � �
4619
-4613-15
4'607
"4601
4SS5-S7
4�7
4539
4531-33
4'll-20 -� 4612
4606
4600
... c:,
(') ... N N -c:, '° N
Lw 0 � Lw
0 " -N---
0\ II) ...0 -NN N N N N ----
4619
4613
4607
4601
'° 0 0 c:, (') (') ... -
(') 0\ 0 c:,
(') (') --
45 1/2 AVENUE
4515 a, .. N c:, '° 0 -N c:, 0 N N N (') (') 4509 ----... .
1201 (J\ In -"(') 0\ 0 -N N 0 0 N N N N (') (') -----
ADDRESS MAP
0 '° 0 0 ... ... -...
"-0 c:, ... ...-...
N -0
(') --
II)-... N
(') (') --
... 0 '° -N N
(') (') (') ---
!? -N M (') --
SHEFFIELD'S NEIGHBORHOOD·
COLUMBIA i HEIGHTS� MINN.
N -... -
(') -... -
N
(') -
-
(') -
1�1 .cl :::c (.) ::, m
1440
0\ I�
�
0 N ... ... -N ... -
.
1480 4650
" " " II) M ... II) '°4636 ... ... ... ---...
LANE 4628 "° (\J 0 N (') ... ... • ... ... ... -
" (') -N (') ... ... ...... ---
1345
a, 4622 ... ... -4614
46060\ • ... 4600-
KEYES PARK
,�
_,J
u :I
RESOLUTION 94- l0
RESOLUTION OF ~HE HOUSING AND REDEVEI~~ AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF COLUmtlA HEIGHTS, MI~/TESOrA
APPROVING THE MODIFICATION OF DOWNTOWN C.B.D.
REDEV~)PM~qT PROJECT AND THE SltZ~lK~.r~ NEIGHBORHOOD
REDEVELO~ AND HOUSING DEV~)PMI~IT PROJECT
BOUNDARI]~.
WHEREAS, the Housinff and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Columbia Heights, M~nnesota (the "Authority") did authorize the creation of a
"redevelopment project" as that term is defined at M~nnesot~ Statutes, section
469.001, subd. 14 on June 14, 1977 which "redevelopment plan" as that term is
defined at M~nnesota Statutes, section 469.001, subd. 16, for said redevelopment
project is referred to as the Downtown C.B.D. Redevelopment Project (the
"Redevelopment Project"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights (the "City") did
approve the Redevelopment plan for said Redevelopment Project on August 3, 1977;
and
WHEREAS, the Authority did approve Amendments to the Redevelopment P!A~ for the
Redevelopment Project with the most recent amendment approved by the Authority
on August 19, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the City did approve the amendments to the Redevelopment plan
for the Redevelopment Project with the most recent Amendment approved by the City
on September 9, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Authority did authorize the creation of a "redevelopment
project" as that term is defined at Minnesota Statutes, section 469.001, subd. 14 and
a "housinff development project" as that term is defined at Minnesota Statutes,
section 469.001, subd. 15, which project is referred to as the Sheffield
Redevelopment and Housing Development Project (the "Redevelopment and Housinff
Development Project") and adopted a "redevelopment plan" as that term is defined
at M{n-esota Statutes, section 469.001, subd. 16 for said "Redevelopment and
Housing Development Project" which is referred to as the Sheffield Neighborhood
Redevelopment And Housing Development pi_An (the "Redevelopment and Housing
Development Plan") on February 6, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the City did approve the Redevelopment and Housing Development
p!An for the Redevelopment and Housing Development Project on February 28, 1994;
and
WHEREAS, the Authority has proposed a program for finan~inff the
redevelopment activities in the Redevelopment and Housing Development Project and
the proposed program involves the use of any surplus funds which may become
avAilAble from the Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, in order for the Authority to use any surplus funds from the
Redevelopment Project for activities to be undertaken by the Authority and the City
in the Redevelopment and Housing Development Project, the Authority and the City
must approve the modification of the boundaries of the Redevelopment Project and
(3~'W68382 "
the Redevelopment and Housing Development Project so as to merge the
Redevelopment l~ojeet and the Redevelopment and Housing Development Project.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Columbia Heights,
(1) The Board of Commissioners approve the mortification of the Downtown
C. B .D. Redevelopment pl.n for the Downtown C.B.D. Redevelopment Project and
the Sheffield Redevelopment and Housing Development P1-~ for the Sheffield
Redevelopment and Housing Development Project in order to merge the boundaries
of the respective Redevelopment Project and Redevelopment and Housing
Development Project conditioned upon the favorable review of said proposed
modification by~ the City P~-n~ng Comm{~sion.
(2) The Board of Commissioners authorize the Executive Director for the
Authority to rm~n.<mit the modZfication of the Downtown C. B.D. Redevelopment p~.n
for the Downtown C.B.D. Redevelopment Project and the Sheffield Redevelopment
and Housing Development Plan for the Sheffield Housing Development and
Redevelopment Project to the City P~-n~ng Commission for its review and comment
as to the conform-nce of the proposed modification of the respective Redevelopment
p].n and Redevelopment and Housing Development Plan with the comprehensive plan
for the City of Columbia Heights.
(3) Upon the Authority's receipt of the comments by the City pl,~;~g
Comm;;sion, the Authority authorizes the Executive DLvector to ~,~;m~t the
Downtown C. B.D. Redevelopment p1,~ as modified, and the Sheffield Redevelopment
and Housing Development Plan as modified, to the City Council for its review and
approval.
Approved this __ day of , 1994.
Mo~on by:
Seconded bM:
Vo~g Aye:
Voting Nay:
Absent:
ATTEST:
Do,~,~d R. Schneider
Its Executive Director
Its Chai~
(~:'W66362
c~xs0-?~ 2
]LESOLUTION 94-1I .
RESOLUTION OF Tw~ HOUSING AND HEDEV~C)~ AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF COLUtmlA I~IGHTS, ~nqlq~SOTA
APPROVING A FINANCING PROGRAM FOR TN~ ~H~ ~.n
NEIG~mORHOOD F,~,u~cv]fa,O~ AND HOUSING DEV~r,OPm~Fr
PROJECT AS ~,M'~IDED.
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Columbia Heights, Minnesota (the "Authority~) did authorize the creation of a.
'~edeveiopment p~oject' as that tern is defined at Minnesota Statutes, section
469.001, subd. 14 on June 14, 1977 which "redevelopment plsn' as that term is
defined at Minnesota Statutes, section 469.001, subd. 16, for said redevelopment
project is r~ferred to as the Downtown C.B.D. Redevelopment Project (the
"Redevelopment Project"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights (the "City") did
approve the Redevelopment plan for said Redevelopment Project on August' 3, 1977;
and
WHEREAS, the Authority did approve amendments to the Redevelopment Plan
for the Redevelopment Project with the most recent amendment approved by the
Authority on August 19, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the City did approve the amendments to the Redevelopment Plan
for the Redevelopment Project with the most r~cent amendment approved by the City
on September 9, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Authority did authorize the creation of a "redevelopment
project" as that term is defined at Minnesota Statutes, section 469.001, subd. 14 and
a "housing development project" as that term is defined at ~nesota Statutes,
section 469.001, subd. 15, which project is referred to as the Sheffield
Redevelopment Housing Development Project (the "Redevelopment and Housing
Development Project") and adopted a "redevelopment plan" as that term is defined
at l~-nesota Statutes, section 469.001, subd. 16 for said "Redevelopment and
Housing Development Project" which is referred to as the Sheffield Neighborhood
Redevelopment and Housing Development Plan (the "Redevelopment and Housing
Development plan-) on February 8, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the City did approve the Housing Development and Redevelopment
plan for the Redevelopment and Housing Development l~oject on February 28, 1994;
and
WHEREAS, the Authority has proposed a program fo~ i'mancing the
redevelopment activities in the Redevelopment and Housing Development Pl-oject and
the proposed program involves the use of the City of Columbia Heights 1994
Community Development Block Grant (the "1994 CDBG"), an Interfund Loan from the
City's Sewer Construction Fund ("Fund 652"), and an Interfund Lo-n from the City's
Liquor Fund ("Fund 609"); and
WHEREAS, Authority accepts from the City the proceeds from the 1994 CDBG,
Fund 652, and Fund 609 which shall be placed in the Sheffield Capital Improvement
~X~0-7% I
Fund ("Fund 410") to finance costs idenl~ted in the Redevelopment P~-n and the.
Redevelopment and Housing Development Plan; and
WHEREAS~ the Adthority intends to repay any funds provided by the City
from Fund 410 from any sumplus funds which may become a.v-~?-ble from the
Redevelopment Pro~ect from 1994 tb_~ough April 2001 ("Suz'plus TIF, CBD TIF
District"), the Authority ~ property tax levy for the years 1995 through 2008
("HRA A~-ual Levy"), and the repayment of the Senior Housing Fund ("Fund 404")
by the City from the City Tax Increment Fund for the Downtown C.B .D. Tax
Increment F~n-n~i~g District.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA that:
(1) The Authority approves the receipt of the proceeds from Fund 410 and
agrees to repay Fund 662 and Fund 609 from the Surplus TIF, CBD TIF District, the
HRA Annual Levy and Fund 404 which financing program sh,11 be ~own as the
"Sheffield Redevelopment Funding Program."
Approved this . day of
,1994.
Motion by:
Seconded by:
Voting Aye:
Voting Nay:
Absent:
ATTEST:
Do~.!d R. Schneider
Its Execu~ve Director
Its
C~E8428
C:~160-7X 2 i~
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
MEETING OF:
GENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS/RESOLUT- ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MGR
IONS & ORDINANCES CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL
O: 6
?EM: SHEFFIELD REDEVELOPMENT FINANCING/ BY: PAT HENTGES
ESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR INTERFUND LOAN DATE: 03/25/94
O TAX INCREMENT FUND
O.: 6.D.4)
The attached information includes:
Resolution calling for Inter-Fund Loans to Tax Increment Funds
A legal opinion from Holmes and Graven regarding funding/repayment of inter-fund loans to tax increment
funds
Financing schedule for Inter-Fund Loans to Tax Increment Fund and Sheffield Redevelopment costs
A flow chart outlining the inter-fund loan, Sheffield Redevelopment cost Plan
Publicorp cash flow schedules on the status of Tax Increment Funds.
Essentially, this information reveals that the City can provide for an inter-fund loan transfer of $459,079 from the Four
Cities Bond proceeds and $408,000.27 from the Parking Ramp Fund to the Tax Increment Fund, in order to correct the
current cash flow problems associated with the tax delinquency on the Columbia Heights Business Center. These funds
are in addition to the $395,918 that was transferred from the Senior Housing Fund. The tax increment schedules
pr~-.pared by Publicorp reveal that even if no tax increments were collected on the Business Center, the fund would likely
have a surplus in the year 2009 sufficient to repay all three sources.
Further, the Holmes and Graven opinion reveals that the Parking Ramp Proceeds and the Four Cities Bond Proceeds
in a total amount of $867,000 could be established as a funding source for a city-wide c. ommunity redevelopment fund.
Th.is funding scenario includes utilization of two years additional parking ramp revenues of $99,276 per year. The
funding excludes an outstanding principal amount of $403,441 of future year Parking Ramp revenues. This amount
co aid also be dedicated to the Community Redevelopment Fund, in the event there are not additional delinquencies or
ta~ adjustments beyond the Columbia Heights Business Center.
T~e second part of the funding scenario assumes the City would receive tax increment revenues from the Columbia
He:ights Business Center. Under this scenario, approximately $954,000 of principal dollars and the Senior Bond Money
in the amount of $395,918 could be utilized for additional redevelopment or public improvement activities within the
Ce;ntral Business District or with a project modification, redevelopment activities in the Sheffield Neighborhood. Thus,
ini.tial funding sources including the sewer revenues, HRA tax levy, and Liquor Fund could be totally repaid using tax
in4:rement funding. This plan does not include interest on any of the inter-loans. Moreover, a payment of taxes by the
Burns Center could also allow for an additional $777,000 to be released to the general tax base, earlier than anticipated
or allow an early retirement of outstanding bonds for year 2009.
-CONTINUED-
COUNCIL ACTION:
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
MEETING OF: March ,28.
AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC I-II=-ARINGS/RI~-qOLUT- ORIGINATI:N'G DF.~ARTMENT: CITY MGR
IONS & ORDINANCF_.S CITY I~,ANAGER'S APPROVAL
NO: 6
TO TAX ~C~NT FU~
NO.: 6.D.4)
Page 2
There are two actions for the C~ty Council to consider. F~rst, consideration of a resolution calling for the interfund
wansfers to the tax increment funds and memorializing the repayment. Second, the establishment of a plan modification
to the original Central Business District Plan and the Sheffield Plan by combining the geographic areas of both, and
providing for the financing plan outlined herein. The public hearing would be scheduled for the April 2//th City
Council meeting. It is emphasized that the plan modification to the TIF District or Project does not include thc actual
collection of any tax increments from the Sheffield Neighborhood, but rather only provides for funding plan as outlined
herein.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of the resolution, there being ample copies available to the
public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 94- , Resolution of' the City Council of the City of
Columbia Heights, Minnesota Authorizing the Establishment of an "Interloan Fund" for the Purpose of Temporarily
Financing Certain Tax Increment Bond Debt Service Obligations of the City of Columbia Heights and of the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Columbia Heights for the Downlown C.B.D. Revitalization Project.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Establish April 25, 1994, as an r financung plan
modifications to Sheffield Redevelopment and Housing Development Plan including use of Liquor Fund Reserves, HRA
Tax Levy, CDBG Allocations, and Revenues from Tax Increment Fund as Financing Sources of Funding for the Plan.
COUNCIL ACTION:
~ 25 'cJ4 17:20 HOL~E$ & GR~tEH P.6
NO. ~4-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS, ~rNNESOTA AUTHORIZING ~ ESTABLIS~ OF AN
'INTEB~ LOAI~ FOR THE PU3LPOS~ OF TEMPOBARILY
FINANCING CERTAIN TAX IN~ BOI~D DEBT SERVICE
OBLIGATIONS OF TH~ CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS AND OF THE
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR ~ CITY
OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS FOR THE DO~NTO~q C.B.D.
]~EV1TA?,? ~.~.?ION PF, OJECT.
WHEREAS, the C~ty Council of 1:he City of Columb~
"~ C~") ~d ~ Hous~ Au~o~ ~ ~d fora ~e City of ~l~b~ H~,
M~-e~m ~d au~o~e ,-d app~ve ~e ~mb~shm~t
~o~ ~ ~ Do~t~ C.B .D. ~e~za~n ~ject (~ "P~ject") ~d a~pted
a Redeve~m~t P~n, ~ted Mar~ ~, 1977; ~d
i
~~S, ~e ~t~ Co~ estab~hed one
~t~cts" ~ ~t te~-~ ~ p~sen~ d~ed a~ ~eso~ Smites, sec~n 469. ~74,
~bd. 9 ~ ~ ~und~es ~ ~e Proje~; ~d
WHEREAS, the City Council authorized the iss,,-,~ee of bonds secured by the
pledge of tax increments derived f~om the tax increment f~a~g dis~cts located
in the Project and the ~enerel ad valorem tax levied upon all taxable property wl~-h~
WHEREAS, ~ong the bond issues secured by the pledge of tax increments and
the general ad valorem .mx. levy are the: (a) $8,175,000 Gene~ Obli~flon Tax
Increment Bonds of 1980; (b) $450,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds of
198~-; (c) $565,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds of 1984; (d) $2,100,000
General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds of 1985, Ser~es A; (e) $9,100,000 General
Obligetion Tax Increment Eef,,,~4~_~ Bonds of 1987; (f) $2 , 399 , 720 . 75 General
Obligation Tax Inorement Capital Approbation Bonds of 1990; and (g) $735,000
General Oblization Taxable Eofunding Bonds of 1993, Series A (the UBond Issues
and
WHEREAS, also secured by the pledge of tax incr,.monte derived from the
increment finan~ d!~_ t~ct is the $2,400,000 Housin[ and Redevelopment Authority
in and fo~ the City of Col,,mbis Heights, Minnesota Tax Increment Revenue Bonds
of 1990; and
WHEREAS, due to li~tion as '~o the valuation of some of the real propet'ty
located w~th~ the tax increment finan~ dis~--icts, ~ City has not z~ived the
projected amount of tax increment required to amoz~ize the Bond Issues
to tl~_ debt service schedule fo~ the outstandin~ principal amount of the Bond
Issues; and
." WHEBEAS, the Ci~ has monies in the followin~ funds which may be pled~d
o~' loaned to the debt service account(s) fo~ ~ Bond Issues so that they may be
amortized aocording to the debt se~-vice schedule fo~ the Bond Issues without the
levy of the ~,e. ner~l ad valorem mx upon all taxable property with~- the City:
Park~-g Ramp Fund No. 290; (2) Fo,A= Cities Bond Fund No. 390; and Sanio~ Housin~
Bond Fund No. 404; -,,d
W~R~S~ based on p=oJec't~n?,_~ :'o= the ~p~ ~ fu~ ~ ~e~en~ ove~
~m ~& ~ ~ No. g90, Fou~ ~es Bond ~d ~o. 390~ ~ ~
H~ Bond ~d No, 4~ ~y be ~p~d ~m ~e e~t~, ~ ~ ~~
~ttsd to ~e Ho,,~nC ~d ~edev~op~ Au~o~ ~ ~d fo~ ~e ~ off Col~b~
NOW, THF.~FORE BE IT RF_~OLVED by the City Council of the City of
Columbia Heights, l~,,eso~a that:
1. Th~ City Counc/I hereby authot, izes The estabDs~men~ of an "I'ntst, b~d
Loan" to :emporaz4/y finance any shoz~fa//s in debt sex-v~ce fo= the Bond Issues.
2. The sou=ce of money for the Interfund Loan sh-ll be
No. 290-~ ~e ~o~t of $408,027, F~ Ct~s Bond F~d No. 390
e~ 352, .
~..~, ~d Se~o= Hous~ F~d No. 4~ ~ ~e -mo~t of ~95,918.
3. The Cit~ A~~o~ ~ he~b~ au~ed
p~p~ fo~ ~e ~te~d ~.
4. ~e ~yo~ ~d ~e Ct~ ~an~en are auto, ed to app~ve
~e ~ documents w~ch s~H memo~e ~e ~s of ~e
Appx*oved tI.~ . day of March., 1994.
MOTION BY:
Vo _~ Aye:
Vot/ngNay:
Absent:
SECONDED BY:
ATTEST:
JoAnne Studen:
Deputy Clex. k
Joseph
GARY
Dima ~
HOLMES & GRAV]
33'/..0210
1994
Patrick Hentges
City Manager
City of Columbia Heights
590 N. E. 40$h Avenue
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Dea~Pat:
The City of Columbia Heights, Uinpesol~ (the "City") and the Housing Authority in
and for the Ci~ of Columbia Heights (the "Housing and Redevelopment Autho~ty°)
have uP, ed whether the Citer may use certain funds to originate an °Intex, fund Loan"
from their present accounts to the project account for the Downtown C.B.D.
Revitalization Project (the "Project") in o~der to finance debt sea*vi'ce fo.~ bonds
issued to finance the Project.
Fur~chermore, you have asked how these funds may be used by the City and the
Housing and Redevelopmen~ Autho~i~ once the Interfund Loans have been
Let us consider both of these issues.
*'
1. Inte~und Loe. u to the Downtown C.B.D. Revltal/zation ~oject.
We unde=stend that the City wants to use three sources of funds to create the
princtpel mount of the 'linterfund loan". These three sources of funds
include: (1) ~evenues paid to the City for the use of an automobile
facilit'y' eonsl~-ue~ed pursuant to Minnesota S~atutes, section 469.14, subd.
in the Pro, oct from the proceeds of the ~--~,000 Genartt Obligation ': Tax
Increment Bonds Of 1982 (the "Par~,~g .Ramp Fund No. 290°); (2) unspent
proceeds and interest ea~ni~_o-s from the $2,400,000 Housing .and
Redevelopment Authority in and fo~ the Cit~y of Columbia Heights .Tax
Increemtn Revenue Bonds of 1990 which remained after the construction of the
Pa~ew VUla South Housing l~-oject (the "Senior Housing Fund No. 404");
and (3) ~ounts received by the City-and interest ea~in_~s from the
r~funding of the $31,758,000 City of Brooklyn Cents]~, Citer of Columbia
Heigh'cs, Cit~j, of Moot-head and the Housing and Redevelopmenc Authority in
and for the Clry of Robbi,~*~d~]e, l~xrnesoCa, Single Family Mox-tgage Revenue
Bonds of 1982 (the "Fou~ Cities Bond Fund No. 390°) . Collectively we shall
refe~ to She Pa~k/ng Ramp Fund No. 290, the Senio~ Housing Fund No. 404
the Four Cities Bond Fund No. 290 u the "Bond Fund Accounts#. What
follows is a description of The res~x, ictions on the use of the monies in the Bond
Fund AccounSs.
P1AR 25 '~J4 17:18 HOLMES & GR~VE~
P.3
1.:'a'="/ck Eautges
(a)
Restrictions on ~ use of ParL*ng Ramp Fund No. 9-90
The Bond Resolutfon for Perlite Hemp Fund No. 290 esmb~hed a
subacco~ desisted ~e Debt Se~ce Ac~t fo~ ~e pa~t of
p~p~ ~d ~teresT on ~e 1982 Bonds. T~ fo~o~g ~v~u~ were
~ be placed ~ ~ Debt Se~ce Acco~: "(a)
~ceived from ~e p~ch~e~ u~n de~ve~ of ~d ~ent fo~ ~he
Bonds; (b) ce~ co~ecdon cf ~ ~c~emen~ de~ved f~m ~e
[Down~own CBD T~x Inc~ment] D~ct pu~ ~o ~e ~e~ of
~-~eso~a Stamles, section 273.76 [Now Minnesota S~m~es, sec~on
469.176] and ce~,~n ~venues de~ved ~om s~e~ ~sess~n~s, le~ed
p~t to au~o~ ~ted ~ ~eso~ S~tes, sec~ 469.14,
o~ o~ sources, av2~ble ~d pledged m pa~
~ ~y, ~d ~te~st on ~ Bon~; (c) ~e gene~ ad v~o~m ~ le~ed
pu~u~t ~o ~e Bond Resolu~on upon ~ ~ble p~pe~
Ct~; and (d) ce~n amounts re~g ~ ~e Capi~ Accoun~ ~ter
comple~o~ of co~c~o~ of the Ymprovemen~ a~d pa~en~s o~ ~e
costs Zher~f."
Once r. he Reserve Account has accum,,l~ted e~ough money to defease the
1982 Bonds, the~ ~ no =est~c~on on how ~e excess ~y be ~ed.
~e~fore, ~y ~ount ~ ~e b-~ce of ~ar~g ~p ~d No. 290
not ~q~d to ~et debt set,ce ~q~ments on ~e 1982 Bonds. ~y
~ p~ced ~ ~e "~te~d L~" for pa~t of debt se~ on ~y
of ~e City's g~ obHga~on b~nd ~sues fo~ w~ ~venues of ~e
~ject ~ve been pledged.
Senior Itousin~ Fund No. 404
The Resolu~ion of the City Council which awarded the sale of the 1990
Senior Housing Bonds p~ovides ~hat the Bond proceeds were to be
deposited tn the l~roject Account axld disbursed to pay or ~eimbul-se for
payment of public ~edevelopment costs of :he Prolect. Tq the ex'tent
t. hey are needed for other costs of the Redevelopment !~o~ec~, they
must be tr*~fez-red to the Debt Service Fund which secures this and
~tl of the other tax increment bonds issued by r~he City or ttou~,~g and
Redevelopment Authority on an equal basis. (See letter from Stafa~_e
N. Galey re: Expenditure of lm~oceeds of $2,399,720.75 City. of Columbia
Heights, M~esota General ' Obligation Tax Increment Capital
Appre~-~ation Bonds of 1990 Series A, dated May 29,
Furthermore, the Tax Inc.~ement Pledge Agreement e. ntered into by the
City and the Housing and Redevelopment Aur~xortty dated Augus~ 11,
1980 provides ~hat "s]~ proceeds of bonds issued by the City in and of
1:he P~o~ect, all revenues and tax increments w~.th respect to the lmroJec~
which axe received b2' the City from the Autho~ty, and all income from
~he inves~men~ thereof by the City, s~,!! be segregated by ~he Cir,' in
a special fund to be used by the City solely for the paymen~ of the
principal of, premi-m, if any, and interesz on said bonds and £or the
MI~ ~5 '94 17:18 HOLMES 8, (~VE~ P.4
Pan. icE Henries
March 25, 1994
Page $
payment or rehnbursement 'of the public redevelopment costs of the
Pro ect."
The use of the monies in the Sen/or Housing Account No. 404 to pay
debt ser~loe on the outsmndin~ bonds issued by the City in A,~ of the
P~oject is what was contemplated when the 1980 T-ax Increment Pledge
A~Teement and the 1990 Resolution of the CiTy Council were executed.
Therefore, usinz the monies in Sen/or Housin~ Account No. 404 through
a- "Inte~fund Loan" to meet the debt service requirements of the
Project is permitted.
(c)
Four Cities Bond Fund No. 390
As ~ndicated b~' Barba~ Po~-twood ~n her letter dated August 14, 1992
re: Use of Proceeds from Refun~,,f~ of Single F~m~¥ Housin~ Mor~c~e
Revenue Bonds (the "Portwood letter"), monies r~leased in connection
w~th the refunding; of ~ bond issue "may be expended for any
essential ~overnmenm~ purpose of the City or the Housing and
Redevelopment Authorit~."
The pavement off public redevelopment costs or debt service on bonds
issued to pay for public redevelopment costs are essential
purposes of the C11:~ or the Housln~ and Redevelopment AuthoriTy.
Therefore, the use of the monies in the Four Ci~ies Bond Fund No. 390
throuffn~h an "Interfund Loan" to pay for the debt service requirements
of the Project is an acceptable use of these
2. Use of the Interfund Loan Repayments.
The use off the repayments of the Bond Fund Accounts is the second issue the
City and Hous~n~ and Redevelopment AuthoriTy asked us to add~ess.
Specifically, the CiTy and Housin~ and Redevelopment Authority .~y establish
& "Redevelopment Account" ~d wish to place the principal and interest
ear~n~-s from each of the Interf-nd Loa-~ in such & Redevelopment Account.
Generally, the repayment of the Inter~und Logic derived from the Bond Fund
Accounts may be used for the public purposes satisfied throu~ expenditures
from a "Redevelopment Account~ with cer~,~ resections.
The ~eneral ~est~lction on most Redevelopment Accounts ia that to ~e e~
~ ~ment ~v~ues or ~venu~ delved ~m ~ ~c~ment
~te~est ~~ a~ used to ~d ~e ~ed~elopm~t Accost,
~e Redevel~men~ Ac~ m~ o~y be e~ended for e~le pubic
~development ~sts ~d o~y ~tM~n ~ bo~~ ~ a '~je~" ~ d~d
at ~esom Smm~,'sec~on 469.174, subd. 8. (~e ~som
~~ ~176, su~d. 4 fo~ ~ ~ta~on on ~~s fo~ pubBc
~evelopment ~s~ of a p~ject). Th~, ~e Redevel~ment Ac~nt
~y ~ ~ed fo~ pubic ~dev~pment costs ~c~d by t~ ~ o~ ~e
H~s~E m~d Redevelopmen~ Au~o~ ~ ~e ~jec~, but no~ on a
~de ~.
i
.~arah 2~, 1994
Page4
He 1s~ev/ously stated the monies in the Parking Ramp Fund No'. 290 and the
Senior Housing Fund No. 404 may be used to finance debt service Or the
l~ojeet. Once the Intez. fund Loans are repaid, the City has 1S~lscsed to place
these account balances in the proposed Redevelopment Account. The city may
place the balance o£ the Parking Ramp Fund No. 290 and the Senior Housing
Fu~d No. 404 in the Itedevelopment Account at the time the Lutez~fmud Loans
are z~epaid, but onIy if the City or the Housing and Eedevelopment Autho~ty
has fdentif/ed other elig'Ible l~ubi/c z~development costs in the Pro~ect.' To the
~¥ me (~it~y or the Housinff and Eedevelopment Authn~ttp., tho
balance of the Parking Ramp Fu~d No. 290 and the Senior Housing Fund No.
404 must be transferred to :he Debt Sea,rice Fund whic~ secu_~es ell of' the tax
increment bonds issued for the Pro,eot.
The ~epayment of the Inte~fund L~an de~-/ved from the Four Cities Bond Fund
No. SS0 has not been p/edged for the tax inc~ement bonds of the
Thus, the ba/auce may be lolaeed Lu a ·
Redevelo me . subaceount of th~
1~ nt Account. The establishment of ~ ~,,~. ......... Proposed
based upon the rest~ctions outlined in the Po~;wood Iette~. Specifte~lly, the
proceeds of the z~-~fu~diug of the bonds may not be used to fiuance l~ope~
used iu a t~ade or business carried on by .a~y l~erso~ other than a
governmental unit. Therefore, these monies may be used for most of the
housing P~g~ams the City and Housing an .
conside~,/ng, but the ---: ....... - d l~edeveIopment A
· ~mes may not l~e u ' utho~ty a~e
~ - ~manejng to homo
Do not hesitate to call if I .can be of ~zVther asaista~ae.
~,:iy you.t-s,
Ga~y p.
G~P~r:mp
City of Columbia Heights
Housing & Redevelopment Financing
T!IF Interfund Loan
As,sets
Interfund loans
Parking Ramp Fund
Four Cities Fund
Four Cities Trust
Senior Housing Fund
Total
Liabilities
Repayment of Interfund Loans to
Community Development Fund
Sheffield Debt Service
408,027
12,727
446,352
395,918
867,106
395,918
1,263,024
Total 1,263,024
Sheffield Redevelopment Funding
Revenue Items
1994 CDBG Grant
Intedund loans
Sewer Construction Fund
Liquor Fund
139,000
710,000
469,000
Total
Expenses
Acquisitions
Relocations
Demolition
Improvements
Contingency
1,118,000
30,000
80,0(X)
38,000
52,000
1,318,000
'total
1,318,000
Deferred Sources of Repayment
Interest on Debt Service
HRA Levy (71,000 for 13 yrs)
Lot Sales ($0 to $320;000)
Transfer from TIF Surplus
(213,000)
923,000
320,000
395,918
Total
1,425,918
pU*~IL]:cdRP, TNC. TEL:612-:3a1-dlaS* Mar 2a,ga ].?:~2 No.O09 P.02
Publicorp Inc.
512 Cmwfl Roller Mill
105 Fifth Avemam Soulh
Mlflne, polil, MN SS401
(612)
FAX (612) ~41,.4148
TO:
FR:
March 25, 1994
Pat Henries, City of Columbia Heights
Mark Ruff
RE: Tax Increment Projections
Attached are three different scenarios for the combined tax Increment account for the City.
The first scenario assumes that the Columbia Heishts Business Center (O-lBO taxes continue to
be delinquent throush the remainin8 term of the tax increment flnancin8 districts and that no
interfund loans from other City sources would be used to support the debt service on the
districts. These assumptions result in a current deficit (March I, 1994) of over $329,000 and
annual deficits for the next four years averagin8 approximately $250,000 per year.
The second scenario assumes that no CHBC taxes will be paid and that all available sources of
interfund loans are added to the tax increment account. The~ sources include $396,000 in the
senior housin8 bond proceeds, the $408,000 in parking ramp fund, the $459,000 in the four
cities reflnancin$ proceeds and two years of the $gs,000 per year assessment revenue from the
parktn8 ramp. These interfund loans result in the future annual deficits being covered by the
current increased balances at a minimal level.
The third scenario assumes that no interfund loans are made, that the S7:?0,000 in unpaid tax
incr,, ment from t.he CHBC is paid in 1994, that full taxes at cu.rrent assessment asreement levels
on the Mall and the CHBC are paid in 1994, and that a mduct~on of the assessment asreements
~ ta~..esi_n_l_9_9_S ocr?rs for the Mall and CHBC. The market value for the Mall would decrease
"~s )?uuu, uoo to. 73:500,..000. ~ the CHBC would decrease from $4,800,000 to $3,850,000.
~ ese cn?n.ses .worn? orop rna tax increment levels for each property to the original deficiency
a...?.~e.m,_en_t_l_~e? of $1.6O:C)C~..per year. fo~..the..Ma!i and $?.88,000 for the CHBC. These chanses
~au, m laC~mve clJmulauve balances lor ~ cIISttlcts ii1 all years..
Please note a few overall assumptions for the runs. First, no Interest on the endin8 balances of
woe,,
o t e outstandin8 principal.
~c~ul n~,- - . . Ukewi., ~itlv.
_would be.~er du? .to th_e iht ,e?t ~m,.nSs on the tax increment fund. Second, Anoka
review~at~en(~i:~n_.t,~opa,y,aole 1..994, va, ues ,.or the tax ,ncrem.ent districts to date. A complete
._, ....... ?Ts .urn ncaa fo..ac, completed to account lor any Increases or decreases in
va, ua, ohs across the tax increment cIIsttlcts.
Please call with any questions or comments.
Page 4
RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 22
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS,
MINNESOTA AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN 'INTERFUND LOAN' FOR
THE PURPOSE OF TEMPORARILY FINANCING CERTAIN TAX INCREMENT BOND
DEBT SERVICE OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS AND OF THE
HOUSINGAND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN C.B.D. REVITALIZATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights,
MinneSota (the 'City Council") and the Housing Authority in and for
the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota did authorize and approve
the establishment of a Redevelopment Project known as the Downtown
C.D.B. Revitalization Project (the 'Project') and adopted a
Redevelopment Plan, dated March 2, 1977; and
WHEREAS, 'the City Council established one or more 'tax increment
financing districts" as that term is presently defined as Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 9 within the boundaries of the
Project; and
WHEREAS, The City Council authorized the issuance of bonds secured
by the pledge of tax increments derived from the tax increment
financing districts located in the Project and the general ad
valorem tax levied upon all taxable property within the City; and
WHEREAS, among the bond issues secured by the pledge of tax
increments and the general ad valorem tax levy are the: (a)
$8,I75,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds of 1980; (b)
$450,000 General Tax Increment Bonds of 1982; (c) $565,000 General
Obligation Tax Increment Bonds of 1984; (d) $2,100,000 General
Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds of i985, Series A; (e)
$9,I00,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds of
1987; (f) $2,399,720.75 General Obligation Tax Increment Capital
Appreciation Bonds of 1990; and (g) $735,000 General Obligation
Taxable Refunding Bonds of 1993, Series A (the "Bond Issues"); and
WHEREAS, also secured by the pledge of tax increments derived from
the tax increment financing district is the $2,400,000 Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Columbia Heights,
Minnesota Tax Increment Revenue Bonds of 1990; and
WHEREAS, due to litigation as to the valuation of some~of the real
property located within the tax increment financing districts, the
City has not received the projected amount of tax increment
required to amortize the Bond Issues according to the debt service
schedule for the outstanding principal amount of the Bond Issues;
and
WHEREAS, the City has monies in the following funds which may be
pledged or loaned to the debt service account(s) for the Bond
Issues so that they may be amortized according to the debt service
schedule for the Bond Issues without the levy of the general ad
valorem tax upon all taxable property with the City: (1) Parking
Ramp Fund No. 290; (2) Four Cities Bond Fund No. 390; and Senior
Housing Bond Fund No. 404; and
WHEREAS, based on projections for the receipt of future tax
increments over the term of the tax increment financing districts,
the amounts borrowed by the City from the Parking Ramp Fund No.
290, Four Cities Bond Fund No. 390, and Senior Housing Bond Fund
No. 404 may be repaid from the estimated, future tax increments
remitted to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the
City of Columbia Heights.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Columbia Heights, Minnesota that:
The City Council hereby authorizes the establishment of an
"Interfund Loan" to temporarily finance any shortfalls in debt
service for the Bond Issues.
The source of money for the Interfund Loan shall be Parking
Ramp Fund No. 290 in the amount of $408,027, Four Cities Bond
Fund No. 390 in the amount of $446,352, and Senior Housing
Fund No. 404 in the amount of $395,918.
The City Administrator is hereby authorized to have loan
documents prepared for the Interfund Loan.
The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to approve and
execute the loan documents which shall memorize the terms of
the Interfund Loan.
Passed this 28th day of March, 1994.
Motion by:
Ruettimann
Seconded by: Peterson
Roll call:
A11 ayes
-Anr{e Student ,-'-~)unci 1
yor F'os~ph-Sturd-ev~t--
Secretary
ATTEST:
I hereby certify that the aforegoing resolution is a true and
correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Columbia Heights at a duly authorized
meeting thereof held on the 28th day of March, 1994, as shown by
inutes of the said meeting in my presence
J~o~Anne Student, D~-~ y City Clerk
COLUMB~ I-~GHTS 1987 PROJECT
~U[.l~i~ I_~.KE TAX IN~:I~
TIF AREA
ADDITION FOR
SHEFFIELD AR~
Housing & Redevelopment Authority
of Columbia Heights
5(.10 N.E. 40th Avenue, Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Oomml~ionm's
Palficta Jindra
P. Icha~ Ou~lin
~Fax: (612) 782-2857 · '[612)' 782-2854
DATE:
TO:
MAY 9, 1994
HRA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND CITY MANAGER/~_
FROM: DON SCHNEIDER, HRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTORd~_.~-
RE: SOURCE OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR HRA FOR REPLACING THE HRA TAX BEING
USED IN THE SHEFFIELD NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
With the use of a major portion ($71,000) of the HRA annual tax levy(maximum of
$78,089 is possible but we have only requested $71,040 for 1994 for use only in the
Sheffield Neighborhood), there is concern that long term use of the $71,000 annually
of the HRAtax levy will seriously jeopardize the future financial viability of the
HRA. HRA staff is concerned too. However, there are alternative sources of funds
to cover the loss of the $71,000 each year for up to 13 years. Following are some
potential sources of funds:
1. Increase the HRA tax levy to the maximum amount of $78,089. This would provide
an additional $7,049 each year.
2. An increase in the income for administering the Rental Assistance Program for
Columbia Heights and Hilltop on behalf of the Metro Council HRA is expected to be
retroactive to January 1, 1994. We budgeted for 1994 program income of $40,280. In
1995, with our staff doing slightly more work and with the increased per unit
reimbursement rate, we expect that program income for administering the Rental
Assistance Program will increase to $53,004 for 1995. These increases are expected
to provide an increase in HRA income of at least $12,720 each year.
3. Return City reimbursement of Executive Director/City Planner/City Community
Development Program Director salary/benefits to 25% from the 10% amount being
reimbursed in 1994. From approximately 1984 through 1993, the City was reimbursing
25% of the HRAExecutive Director's salary/fringe benefits. The 25% reimbursement
is justified in that the HRAExecutive Director is the City Planner, administers the
Community Development Block Grant Program, administers the public parking ramps and
other parking programs, tax increment financing, and other activities of the City
which involve very little, if any, reimbursement for time of the Executive Director.
A return of the City reimbursement to the 25% level would increase the reimbursement
from approximately $16,560 for 1994 to $27,160 for 1995. This would provide
approximately $10,600 annually.
4. Additional program income for administering various additional rehabilitation
projects. Estimated at $10,000 additional income per year.
5. Retain current staffing level(Secretary, Housing Manager & Executive Director)
with the Parkview Villa Housing Complex managed and maintained by Crest View. No
replacement of Community Development Coordinator position. Savings of approximately
$30,000 to $35,000 per year.
With frugal management and limited new projects without administrative funds to
support them, the HRA should be able to operate without the $71,000 per year for the
13 years.
Please call me at 782-2855 if you have any questions.
Equal Opportunity Employer
Equal Housing Opportunity Agency
U~zlted 8tares Attormy
FOR IMMEDIATE
Minnesota police departments had received grants to add police officer~ to their forces. The
'.... '~;=~.~. ~:-:':;i" ":.
grants are ursuant to th~ Police Htrt~ ~l~pplomen[~~ .~'~-:':'i~- '~'~
,,
10 additional officers l~r department. Thc Moorh~ Police Department will receive
$361,567 tO hire 6 mor~ offi~r., Pi. ally, $368,383 in monl~ w~l b~
Columbia Heights Police Department for 2 additiolIg
Accordin~ to U.S. Attorney D~vid L. IJllehau& throu~ whose
~rents were announced, stated, ~l'hese ~r~ts, devoted pflmarlly to oommvnity pollctn~ will
make a diffcronce in thc ongoing fl~ht against crime in Minnesota. We're pleased that
Mfnncsota was included in this pro. am, and we hop~ that the Crlm~ Bill will bo passed so!
that more such ~rants may come 1V~nnesota's way.' :- / :.~--:'.-~~
· . ' -~'~ ~~":'1
For ~urthe, information contact Harrl Kr~m~r at (202) $14-1~4. ~i~/, '~j~
..
,POLICE DEPARTivIENT
CITY OF COLdlVtBIA HEIGHTS
DONALD J. MURZYN, JR.
Mayor
559 Mill Street Northeast
Columbia Heighls, MN 55421-3882
October 13, 1993
· Inlo~matlon (812) 782.284o
-Investigations 782-2850
Fax Number 782-2842
DAVID P. MAWHORTER
Chief of Police
782-2845
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Control Desk, Room 948
633 Indiana Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20531
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enclosed is the Columbia Heights proposal for the hiring of two police officers under the Bureau
of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement program.
The hiring of the requested two officers will allow us to continue our commitment to community
oriented/problem solving policing that was started in March of 1992. With the approval and
funding of these positions, we will be able to implement this policing philosophy on a city-wide
basis.
Thank you for your time and your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Mayor
David P. Mawhorter
Chief of Police
DPM:mld
93-386
Enclosure
· ,.APPLICATION FOR
FEDERAL ASS!STAHCE
October 13, 1993
DAli IIClMD BY fBOIIIAL AOINCY
,,0U! App~ovil No. fl414041
I dIPltLICJJff llfOSMAIION
..ct ty~ o[
Columbia HeiBhts
City of Coldmbis Helshts
590 60th Avenue N.E.
Anoka County
.Columbia Heishtst lin 55&21-~882
I MI Of APPLICAI1ON:
Ckp~botbnol Unit
Columbia HeLBhts Police Department
Chief David
(612) 782-2 86~
A ~oto H ~ b ~.
B ~ t Outs ~ ~ d ~ Loo,~
~ IMM IM),al),loto briM(0! b ba~(#): LJ
InChoN Awl,d B. Dec,else AwMd
Dsc. eel Du,oflm C)me, (fpec/~):
0
Bureau of Juotlce Xe0tetanc8
Policln8 Hirin8 Supplement
Population of Jurisdiction to be oerved:
19659
Total number of BroTh officers to be hired: 2
Name of Jurisdiction to'be served,
Cities of Columbia Heishts and Hilltop
135,623
- 135,623 M
2 71,266 .OD
YEI TI. tiS I~EAPPLCATIOWAPf'L~ WA9 MADE AVAILABLE va THE
8TATE EXECUTWE O~IDER IIJ*l PIMSS FOR REV~rW ON:
b NO. [] IN~XMI~IdlS*dOT(:X~BYa. O. II3FI
[] ye. II 'Ye!.' o~och M e,et.aotlm.
lit 10 IH! Il'l! Of MY KNOM!OO! AND I!U!Ir ALL DATA IN V#ii APPLICATION~P·f, APPLICAVION. ARC IIU~ AND CORRECT. 1141 OOCUMENI' HAS JIG# DULV
diUI.OIqVO IV ~ DOVE#HIND lady Of' IM APPUC:AN! AND I*#1 APPLICANT 1fiLL COMPLY WlIH '!141 AT'AC#lO AIIUIU. NCI$ ! IN #$iillNCl ii iWAlIOIO
Donald J. Hurzyn, Jr.
9b" /
I ¢. v,,,~ ~, '.
b
l"layor '1 (6:12) 782-2809
- .
' I
IIIn(llrd Fq~_ ilia ~V dill
I
UJ
(/3
II
. II
II
II
II
II
!i
ii
II '-'
ii ~
il-i
"'e
II
Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program
Page I
October 13, 1993
PUBLIC SAFETY NEED
The cities of Columbia Heights and Hilltop are inner-ring suburbs of Minneapolis.
Columbia Heights is a city of about four square miles with an estimated 1993 population of just
over 19,000 residents. It is adjacent to the northern border of Minneapolis and has a direct bus line
to the inner city. The city's housing stock is aging, most built in the 1950's, with small building
lots. Many homes are valued at a price that makes them affordable for the fa'st-time home buyer.
There is a large senior population and more than the metro suburban average of low priced rental
units, many of which are three bedroom.
Located completely within the city of Columbia Heights is the city of Hilltop. Columbia
Height provides contract police service to Hilltop. The 1993 estimated population of Hilltop is just
over 700. Hilltop consists of a mobile home park, a small strip mall, several lower bracket
apartment buildings, and a low-priced motel. The eastern edge of Hilltop is located on the major
bus line to the inner city.
There is very little industrial business in Columbia Heights and none in Hilltop. Retail
business consists mainly of fast food type restaurants, service type businesses, and lower end retail
stores. Part I and Part II crime in Columbia Heights has experienced a steady increase over the
past six years. A recent analysis of January to September reported criminal activity shows that
there has been a total increase of 36% in reports of Part I and Part II crime from 1988 to 1993.
Part I crime increased 27% and Part II crime increased 42% during this same period. It is
interesting to note that during the same time period, the population of Columbia Heights dropped
by over 800 residents.
The social ingtability and poverty commonly associated with the central cities of Minneapolis
Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program
Page 2
October 13, 1993
and St. Patti have established a firm foothold in the inner-ring suburbs of the Twin Cities area.
Some very disturbing trends are occurring in Columbia Heights and Hilltop which make providing
basic police services more difficult. They include the following:
·
Married families with children
"In 1990 the percent of married families with children living in Columbia Heights
represented less than 25% of all family units. Thi.~ represented a decline of 30% from 1980.
Hilltop had 11%, which represented a 30% decline from 1980. This loss of traditional family
base in our community has a negative impact on the health and stability of the community.
During the same ten-year period, outer-ring suburbs experienced loss of married families with
children at a rate significantly less than Columbia Heights (0 to -10%).
Median income
Residents of Columbia Heights and Hilltop grew poorer in the decade of the 80's.
Columbia Heights saw the decade from 1979 to 1989 close with a 12% decline in median
household income to a level less than $35,000 adjusted tO 1991 dollars. Hilltop fared no better
and ended the decade from 1979 to 1989 with a median household income of $21,306, among
the lowest in the metro area when compared to a metro median household income of $39,588.
Outer-ring suburbs, on the other hand, ended the 1979-1989 decade with a median household
income of $50,000 or more as adjusted for 1991 dollars, which tra~-~lated into an increase of
10% and more.
Children under five years of age below the poverty level
The percentage of poor children in a community is a very trenchant statistic. It represents ..
not only present instability, but provides n worrisome insight into the community's future.
Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program
Page 3
(3ember 13, 1993
Poor children are less likely to have both parents, to fini.~h high school, to find meaningful
employment, or to avoid the damning, deadening grasp of the criminal justice system.
Columbia Heights provides a particularly sU41dng example of the spread of childhood
poverty in the inner suburbs of the Twin Cities area. With 21% of our children in poverty in
1989, we had as large a percentage of poor children as neighboring Minneapolis had in 1979.
Today, we are growing poor 1.71 times faster than Minneapolis. Hilltop grew poor at a rate
nearly equal with Columbia Heights. The outer-ting suburbs grew less poor, 0-20%, and some
had no poor at all.
All of this information points to a disturbing trend. As we become more and more poor and
as our traditional family base continues to erode, the need for police and other helping services
increases, while the ability of the community to pay for these services decreases because those who
live in the city can't afford to pay for the services that they consume.
Crime Increase
Crime in Columbia Heights and Hilltop has steadily increased over the past 12 years. An
article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune newspaper dated September 29, 1993, revealed that in 1992
Columbia Heights fled for number one in the overall reported Part I and II crime among the 20
suburban communities surrounding Minneapolis and St. Paul that were surveyed. The report
indicated that Part I crime almost doubled from 1980 to 1992, ending at a rate of 75 Part I crimes
per 1,000 pop~_flation. Part II crime almost tripled in the same time period, ending with a reported
rate of 111 crimes per 1,000 population.
The demographic and socioeconomic changes impacting the city over the last ten years and the
fact that the area of the city that has felt this impact the greatest is on a major bus line to the inner
Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program
Page 4
October 13, 1993
city of Minneapolis, have brought a dramatic increase in violent crime. Since 1988, robbery has
increased 47%, aggravated assault has increased 56%, and weapons violations have increased over
50%. Nonviolent crime has also shown a marked increase, with burglary rates up 10%, larceny
rates up 23%, and vehicle theft up 45%.
Columbia l-leight~ and Hilltop are both small communities made up of blue collar families who
have a long history of community pride and involvement. The daily barrage of media reported
violence in the Twin Cities metro area and the increasing incidence of violence in our community
is very frightening and disturbing to our citizens. Their concern and their fear have been voiced
to public officials on numerous occa-~ions in the recent past. Their willlr~gness to help keep their
community safe has aiso been expressed.
Our actual number of crimes may seem insignificant and unworthy of serious consideration
when compared to some other large cities across the nation. However, we nonetheless need help
controlling the changes that are beginning to affect us. We have the community support and, with
some assistance, can reverse the trend that is affecting us now.
In 1992, Don Murzyn, Jr. was elected to the office of mayor, lie appointed David Mawborter
as the new chief of police. With that nppointment came a directive to move the deparunent away
from traditional policing and into community oriented/problem solving policing. The Chief
dedicated one patrol officer and another n short time later that was funded by a grant from the
Minnesota Office of Drug Policy to begin a pilot community oriented policing project in one of our
transitional neighborhoods. This area consisted of the city of Hilltop, a ten-square-block area
located just to the east of Hilltop, and the Central Avenue business district. A review of calls for
service data showed that this area consistently accounted for 45 to 50% of the total calls for service
Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program
Page 5
October 13, 1993
in the city. The pop,.~l~tion and geographic size of this area amounted to around 10% of the city
population and size.
Along with the high crime and service demands in this area, there were frequent reports of
citizen fear to wallt about ia the area, be out at night, and general unsafe conditions. There were
many reports of crack houses and open air drug denllrtg. The housing stock consisted of a mixture
of old residential homes and many rundown duplexes and apartment buildings. Single family home
owners were trying to move from the area due to fear, but were unable to because of the area's
reputation and the significant drop in real estate values. People felt trapped and were unhappy.
The community police officers quickly found themselves working with landlords, building
officials, and fire officials to solve rental unit code violations. These officers formed a group of
landlords that meet on a regular basis to educate, assist, and encourage responsible tenant screening
standards and encourage landlords to take action against tenants who had repeated loud parties or
were involved in drug activity. They met with law-abiding neighborhood residents and worked
with them to solve problems they identified in the neighborhood and assisted neighborhood
residents with social service needs.
In early 1993 the city hired a new manager, Patrick Hentges. Mr. Hentges promptly began
working with the officers, other city officials and elected representatives to develop a neighborhood
revitalization project designed to renovate blighted duplexes ia the area.
We have been involved ia this project for just over a year now and have come along way
toward turning the neighborhood around. Citizens no longer complain of loud and disturbing
conduct at the rate they used to. They are less afraid to walk ia the area, even after dark.
Indications are that the crime and calls for service in the area are on a downward trend.
Bureau of ~ustice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program
Page 6
October 13, 1993
Because of our commiunent to community oriented/problem solving policing, we are now ready
to take the next step to full, city-wide implementation. This will be a difficnlt task because of our
current work load. The level at which general patrol officers must respond to dispatched calls for
service does not allow adequate time for neighborhood organization and meetings or for problem
solving. Declining revenues due to declining property values, declining median income, and state
aid funding cuts to local units of government make the possibility of hiring additional officers
unrealistic. We nevertheless are committed to moving forward. We need to enlist the aid of our
citizens in problem identification, neighborhood police priority needs assessment, and problem
solving, both with the police and by themselves. We need to develop call management strategies
to lessen the work load, and to develop creative ways to resolve persistent problems. We also need
to develop and implement the use of volunteers where appropriate.
With the funding of two additional officers by this grant and the funding requested from the
Minnesota Office of Drug Policy for a technical assistant to aid in community organization and to
research and implement call reduction strategies and volunteer programs currently in operation in
other deparunents, the Columbia Heights Police Department will be able to reach its goal of full
implementation of community oriented/problem solving policing.
The Columbia Heights Police Department has a proud history of providing prompt service to
its citizens. We are still able to provide a full range of both criminal and noncriminal services that
our citizens have grown ~med to receiving. Through our proposal, we hope that we can
continue our tradition of community service and not become a reactive police force that only has
time to respond to calls of Part I crime.
Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program
Page 7
October 13, 1993
Public Safety Need, Additional Information
I. 1990 U.S. Census Population
Columbia Heights 18,910
Hilltop 749
Total 19,659
2. The unemployment rate for the jurisdiction for each of the last five years:
Minnesota does not keep unemploymen! figures by jurisdiction for cities as small as
Columbia Heights and Hilltop. However, the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area unemploy-
ment figures, which include Columbia Heights and Hilltop, are as follows:
I988 3.4%
1989 7.8%
1990 4.3%
1991 4.6%
1992 4.5%
3. The ratio of population to sworn officers for Columbia Heights and Hilltop is:
1.07 officers per 1,000 population in 1990 ,
1.09 officers per 1,000 population in 1993
4. The number and types of citizen calls for service handled by patrol officers for each of the last
five years.
The Department responded to the following ca11.~ for service:
Criminal Noncriminal .Total
1988 2,923 10,465 13,388
1989 2,844 11,575 14,419
1990 3,176 11,586 14,762
1991 3,188 11,079 14,267
1992 3,713 8,370 12,083
Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program
Page 8
October 13, 1993
The jurisdiction's uniform crime report UCR rates for all Pan I offenses for each of the last
five years:
* Modified crime index, including arson
1992 1991
"Columbia Heights '1,357 '1,177
Hilltop 11,213 15,620
1990 1989 1988
· 1,227 '1,073 '1,060
16,270 12,142 13,771
6. The actual number of full time law enforcement officers employed during each of the last five
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
22 officers
20 officers
21 officers
20 officers
19 officers
The number of officers deployed by function during each of the last five years:
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
two administrative, three investigative, 17 patrol
two aclmini.~trative, two investigative, 16 patrol
two admini.~lrative, three investigative, 16 patrol
two administrative, three investigative, 15 patrol
two administrative, three investigative, 14 patrol
8. The actual number of officers laid off or furloughed during each of the last five years: None.
Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program
Page 9
October 13, 1993
10.
The actual operational expenditures for police services and total expenditures by the
jurisdiction for each of the past five years:
Police Total Jurisdictional
1992 $1,714,603 $17,614,297
1991 $1,666,783 $21,144,279
1990 $1,690,382 $27,530,676
1989 $1,506,566 $16,107,128
1988 $1,401,390 $15,218,885
The expenditures for police overtime and/or the amount of compensatory time granted in lieu
of overtime spending for each of the past five years; provide an explanation for overtime
expenditures:
Overtime $ Compensatory Time granted
1992 $34,995 788 hours
1991 $27,566 766 hours
1990 $30,443 652 hours
1989 $34,426 887 hours
1988 $29,487 1,024 hours
Overtime monies and compensatory hours are earned for the following activities: court time,
shift holdover, working a vacant shift, and special assignments. Most overtime and compensatory
time is earned in court time, followed by ~]]ing vacant shifts (due to vacation, sick leave, etc.), and
then by shift holdover.
Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program
Page 10
October 13, 1993
STRATEGY
The overall goal of this proposal is to implement community oriented/problem solving
policing as a primary method of delivering police services throughout the cities of Columbia
Heights and Hilltop.
Our current demonstration project consisting of one officer dedicated by the deparunent.and
one officer funded through a grant from the Minnesota Office of Drug Policy has shown that
community oriented/problem solving policing is a successful method of solving problems of crime
and related disorder in the community. This project has its focus on creative problem solving as
the primary manner of service delivery. Problem solving partnerships have been established:
1. with area landlords through monthly landlord meetings,
2. with area citizens through block watch meetings and individual contacts,
3. with business persons dxrough personal contacts and seminars,
4. through coordinated efforts of building officials, f'u'e officials and police to solve rental unit
blight conditions,
5. through work with all city deparunents and the city manager to develop a redevelopment plan
for the area,
6. through direct working relationships with social service providers, schools and mediation
services to solve problems of truancy, domestic abuse, tenant/landlord problems, welfare fraud
and other social problems, and
7. through working with other county law enforcement agencies to solve drug sales problems.
The depamnent plans to involve community leaders and area residents in the planning,
implementation, and coordination of this endeavor in the following manner.
Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program
Page 11
October 13, 1993
About a year ago, the Chief of Police brought together a group of citizens to form the Police
Chief's Forum. This Forum is made up of neighborhood block watch captains from various areas
in the city, the clergy, the schools, student representatives, business representatives, a mayoral
appointment, and several at large interested persons. It's primary mi.~sion is to provide information
and advice on police matters that directly affect the city and its ci!!Tv, ns. This proposal has been
reviewed and endorsed by the Forum, who will be charged with monitoring its progress and making
recommendations on changes or improvement.
Another and equally valuable source of guidance will be the neighborhood associations that
will be formed. If our community is like others that have moved toward this concept, the
department and its employees will be held accountable for progress, or lack of it, made in solving
identified neighborhood problems. Citizens will provide guidance toward the implementation of
the endeavor, to be sure.
Finally, in an effort to establish community interest and commitment to expanding the practice
of community oriented/problem solving policing city-wide, .the Mayor and I have scheduled a
meeting of all our block captains in two weeks. The purpose of this meeting will be to provide
information and answer questions regarding community oriented/problem solving polieing and to
explain our vision of expanding this philosophy city wide. We will also pass out a community
survey and ask that our block captains distribute the surveys to their block members and return
them to us when complete. The survey will assess citizen interest and commitment to community
oriented/problem solving policing and to their feelings regarding call reduction strategies.
It is felt that with the above listed efforts, community participation will be developed and
sustained.
Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program
Page 12
October 13, 1993
In achieving our goal of full city implementation of community oriented/problem solving
policing as the primary law enforcement method of service delivery, we plan to assign our patrol
sergeants to specifically identified neighborhoods. It will be their responsibility to organize
neighborhoods, meet with the neighborhood members regularly for problem identifcafion and the
develoPment of police/neighborhood problem solving efforts. It will then be the responsibility of
the sergeants to work with the neighborhood members and their assigned patrol officers to develop,
implement, and evaluate problem solving strategies. We realize that as this process begins, our
calls for service will continue and may actually increase. The two officers requested in this
proposal will be used to relieve patrol sergeants so they do not have to handle as many calls as they
currently do and so they will have time to perform neighborhood organization and other
neighborhood problem identification and solution duties.
Besides the implementation strategies already discussed in this part of the proposal, we intend
to build on our current experience in problem solving that has been gained through our
demonstration project and through our currently established problem solving procedure. Our current
experience combined with thc proposed new implementation strategies should work well together
and result in productive and positive collaborative efforts to solve crime and related disorder
flu-oughout all neighborhoods of Columbia Heights and Hilltop.
We plan to assess the progress of our evolution to city wide community oriented/problem
solving policing in the following ways:
· By the number of neighborhoods organized
· By the number of meetings held with organized neighborhoods
Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program
Page 13
October 13, 1993
By citizen surveys regarding the quality of services delivered and satisfaction with problems
addressed
By logging and summari~ng complaints and compliments from citizens regarding their
experiences with the method of policing
By logging, assessing, and analyzing the individual problems encountered and the results of
the attempted solutions
By analysis of crime and service related calk for service
By monthly feedback and evaluation from the Police Chief's Forum
By surveys of officers regarding the viability of the system and any suggested improvements
By the number and outcome of volunteer programs and call reduction strategies implemented
by the department.
We do not anticipate that the addition of the requested two police officers will have any
significant impact on other criminal justice agencies. Because these officers will be primarily used
to t'fll the call response duties currently being fulfilled by our patrol sergeants, we do not anticipate
a significant increase in arrests and prosecutions merely because of the addition of the officers.
There may be some increase in arrests and prosecutions due to the cir~Te, us gaining confidence in
the police and w~lllngly working with them to solve crime. At this point, however, we are unable
to accurately assess this impact. Through problem solving documentation already in place, we
should be able to identify any excessive trends and take steps to work with respective justice
agencies to relieve pressure.
Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program
Page 14
October 13, 1993
Implementation Plan
Our proposal's goal and implementation slrategies are as follows:
To implement community oriented/problem solving police services throughout the cities of
Columbia Heights and Hilltop.
Oblective I Administrative preparation
A. To rewrite the job descriptions of patrol sergeants to include new duties of community
oriented/problem solving policing.
B. To develop a job description for the position of technical assistant (funding to come from
Minnesota Office of Drug Policy gran0.
C. To obtain necessary Council approval for the above job descriptions.
Time Line Completion Dates Person(s) Responsible
A. 12-1-93 to 01-01-94 City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Police Chief
B. 12-1-93 to 01-01-94 Assistant City Manager
Police Chief
C. First Council meeting of 1994 Mayor and City Council
Objective 2 Develop new performance evaluation tools tailored to community, oriented/problem
solving policing
A. To research, develop, and implement a new performance rating system for patrol sergeants
that has its main focus on community orienw. A/problem solving accomplishments.
B. Train patrol sergeants in this system and performance expectations.
Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program
Page 15
October 13, 1993
Time Line Completion Dates
A. 01-01-94 to 05-30-94
B. 05-30-94 to 6-1094
Person(s). Responsible
Police Chief
Patrol Captain
Patrol Captain
Objective
A.
Selection Process
To develop and administer the necessary hiring programs for the two police officers and the
technical assistant (funding to come from Minnesota Office of Drug Policy Grant.
Make selections of above positions, establish employment starting dates, and swearing-in
dates.
Time Line Completion Dates
A. 01-15-94 to 02-15-94
Person(s) Responsible
Civil Service Commission
Assistant City Manager
Police Chief
B. 03-01-94 Mayor
Police Chief
.Objective 4
A.
Training Requirements
Provide initial City orientation training and program requirements training to thc technical
assistant (funding to come from the Minnesota Office of Drug Policy).
Complete field training officer program for two new officers.
Provide training to patrol sergeants in community organization skills.
naining on problem solving to all sworn personnel.
Provide refresher
Bureau of Justice Assistance Pohce Hiring Supplement Program
Page 16
October 13, 1993
Time Line Completion Dates
A. 03-01-94 to 03-15-94
B. 03-01-94 to 6-1-94
C. 03-01-94 to 06-01-94 (various times)
Person(s) Responsible
Police Chief
Assisumt City Manager
Volunteer Coordinator
Patrol Captain
Field Training Sergeant
Police Chief
Patrol Captain
Volunteer Coordinator
Ob,|ective 5
A.
Bo
Neighborhood Identification and Organization
Patrol sergeants will be assigned geographic areas within the city as their responsible areas
for neighborhood organization and problem solving.
With the aid of the administrative technician (funded through a grant from the Minnesota
Office of Drug Policy), neighborhoods throughout the city will be identified and organized.
Time Line Completion Dates
Person(s) Responsible
A. 06-01-94 Police Chief
Patrol Commander
06-01-94 to 12-31-94, 116 of the city
01-01-95 to 12-31-95, 2/3 of the city
01-01-96 to 12-31-96, 1/6 of the city
Patrol Captain
Patrol Sergeants
Administrative Technician
Objective 6 Neighborhood Meetings and Problem Solving
A. Patrol sergeants, with the aid of the administrative technician, will meet with established
neighborhood groups on a monthly basis to discuss area problems and policing priorities.
B. As problems are identified, patrol sergeants will work with neighborhoods on solutions.
Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program
Page 17
October 13, 1993
Time Line Completion Dates
A. Through the life of grant
B. Through the life of grant
Person(s) Responsible
Patrol Captain
Patrol Sergeants
Administrative Technician
Patrol Captain
Patrol Sergeants
Officers
Objective 7
A.
Volunteer Program and Call Management Strategies
Administrative technician (funded through a grant from the Minnesota Office of Drug
Policy) will research current volunteer programs and call management techniques in place
in other departments throughout the country.
Administrative technician will meet with the Chief and Patrol Captain to discuss and
recommend appropriate volunteer programs and call management techniques for the
department.
Selected program will be adopted and put in place by the department.
Time Line Completion Dates
A. 03-15-94 to 06-30-94
B. 03-15-94 to 07-15-94
C. 07-15-94 to end of grant period.
Person(s) Responsible
Administrative Technician
Police Chief
Patrol Captain
Administrati3~e Technician
Police Chief
Patrol Captain
Administrative Technician
Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program
Page 18
October 13, 1993
CONTINUATION AND RETENTION PLAN
As stated above, the City is committed to implementing the philosophy of community orient-
ed/problem solving policing. As part of this commitment, the Columbia Heights City Council has
passed a resolution (attached) agreeing to fund the necessary cash match required throughout this
grant Period and to continue these positions at the termination of the grant Period.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES COMM12lViENT
As part of thc overall plan for the transition from traditional policing to community
orien~Yproblem solving policing, the department is applying for a grant from the Minnesota Office
of Drug Policy for additional training monies to be used for training in community oriented
policing, problem solving, and neighborhood organization.
This grant also contains a request for funding for a position of administrative technician. This
position's responsibilities include:
1. Assisting patrol sergeams with neighborhood organization activities,
2. Researching call management strategies currently in oPeration throughout the county and
recommending those that are applicable to our deparunent.
3. Researching volunteer programs that are currently oPerating throughout the county and
recommending those that are appropriate for this department.
This grant, if funded, will be in effect for one year, with a high pwbability of a second year
of funding. During this time period, these goals should be attainable and will greatly advance the
department's implementation of community oriented/problem solving policing.
It is anticipated that the amount of this funding will be approximately $42,000, or a wtal
amount of $84,000 for two years.
Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program
Page 19
October 13, 1993
CERTIFICATION OF USE OF FUNDS
The City of Columbia Heights and its Police Department hereby certify that funds made
available under the Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program, Number
16.580, Drug Control and System Improvement Discretionary Grant Program will not bt: used to
supplement state or local funds, but will be used to increase the amount of state or local funds that
would be available for law enforcement purposes in the absence of federal funds.
Date
David P. Mawhorter, Chief of Police
Date
Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program
Page 20
October 13, 1993
BUDGET PROPOSAL NARRATIVE
Attached are two budget documents that explain the budgeting requirements of this proposal.
The first attachment, tiffed Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplemental Program
Budget Documentation, outlines the estimated costs of one officer for each of the three years of the
grant proposal and also includes a total expenditure for thc life of the grant. This document
explains all costs associated with salary, overtime, fringe benefits, and other known costs for the
hiring and maintenance of one officer for this grant period. It does not break out those costs that
will be covered by the grant proposal.
The second attachment, titled Cost distribution for requested two officers, outlines the same
costs reflected on the previous attachment as they relate to the two officers proposed and the
distribution of costs to the City and to the grant.
DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
Complete this form to disclose lobbying activities pursuant to 31
(See reverse for public burden disclosure.)
1. Type of Federal Action:
I--~'J ·. contr·ct
b. Br·nt
c. co(q)ffltive IBrUmut
d loin
e. loan lulrsntee
f. loon insurance
e
· . bid/offer/application
~'lb. Initial award
c. post-aw·rd
Nome end Add,us of lepoflbl Emily:
I~ Prime O Subawsrdee
Tier ./f bown:
City of Coltmb'la l~eight8
590 &0th Avenue
Anoka County
Columbia Helehts. Ninnesota 55421-3882
Coq~ssioualDld'dd, if tnown:
Fedoral DepmmenVXlency:
U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Justice Assistance
I. Federal Ad·on Number,/f &nown:
U.S.C. 1352
10. a. Name and Addms of Lobby·ns Entity
(if indiv~ual, /os! name, fi,! n~me. MI):
Hone
3. Repofl Type:
EJ·. initial fSI·ns
b. material chanle
year IlUlfter
dote of .list
If Itepomnl EMity in No. 4 k Se,l, mimbe,
Name Mid AddreN of Prime:
~1 District, if bown:
hderd Pmsrom
DFu8 Control and System Improvement
Discretionary Grant Prosram
CFDA Number./fa/~/kab/e: 16-580
Award Amount, if
S
b. Individuals Perfonnln8 Servkes
(/r)cludiflf address l( #if~e~en! (rom No.
Hone
11. Amount of Payment (checi off f/Ltl apply):
S None Q actual [:] planned
12. form of Payment fcbect s//M aPI~): N/A
O · cash
[3 b in-kind: specify: uature
value
13. Type of Payment (checl s//lb! fpp/y):
[~ S. milner N/A
C3 b. oM-time fee
l:J c. commission
D d. continlent fee
I:J e. defened
I:] f. other; specify:
14. Brief Des·apPian of Senbs PM·mad M to be PM·mad and D·tds) of k, Mce, indudlnl office(s),
employee(s), M Membu(s) contacted, for I)symenl Indicated b item 11:
H/A
1S. CondmMimt Shed(s) SF-LLL-A Mt·chad: D Yes ~ No
,,: I . I
,,c~onlJSZTMskioNNM~,ctivflk~b,mied,l,eW.m~ I S~lture:A' ~ , ' I I
WMMJ1US.C. 13S2. T~MtMdlk~ffMh I -- .. ' ' '
~.~OLUTION NO. ,?~- ~o
B~ING A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING SUBMISSION AND AUTHO~'~NG BUDGET
COMMITME~ TO THE FEDERAL. POLICE HIRING SUPPLI~H'AL GRANT
PROGRAM FOR TWO ADDITIONAL POLICE OFFICERS
WHEREAS: The City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, is applying to the Bureau of Justice
Assistance for , grant for two police officers to b~ used to further community
oriented policing efforts of the Police Deparanent, and
WHEREAS: Pan of the critera for granting this request requires , commitment on the pan
of the City Council to fund 50 per cent of the ~!ories of the two officers over
the three-year grant period and to continue these positions at the conclusion of
the grant;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Columbia Heights City Council
agrees to match the funds requir~ by the grant and to retain these positions at the conclusion
of the three-year gram period.
Passed this 1 lth day of October, 1993.
Offered by: Nawrocki
Seconded by: C I erk i n
A11 ayes
Roll call:
bfayor Donald ~. biurz~,~'lr, v
o-Anne Student, Council Secretary
COLUMBIA I-n~JGHTS POLICE DEPARTMENT
TO:
FROM:
SUBIECT:
DATE:
Mayor Donald Murzlm, h.
David P. Mawhorter, Chief of Police
Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Hiring Supplement Program Grant
Office of Drug Policy Crime Prevention Grant
October 1, 1993
As directed by you, I have begun to put together the necessary documentation to submit
for these grant proposals. As part of the grading criteria, I will need your approval and
Council's approval in certain matters. For that reason, I am submitting the following
brief description of the grant proposals, the projected costs of the grants to the City and
a request for either a resolution or some other type of Council endorsement regarding thc
continuation of this project and the continuation of the positions at the end of the grant
period.
Federal Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant
The basic strategy of this grant is to hire three new police officers. These officers will
be deployed during the hours of 11:00 A.M. until 3 A.M. on two different shifts; one will
work 11 A.M. to 7 P.M., the other working 7 P.M. to 3 A.M. These are our busiest call
times, and we will be able to make the best use of the officers during this period. When
these officers are trained and put on the street, they will then backfill for patrol sergeants
who will' also be assigned the same basic schedule deployment time. It will be the
responsibility of the patrol sergeants to organize neighborhood coalitions, to meet with
these neighborhood coalitions and discuss problems and concerns that they have in their
neighborhoods. In cooperation with the neighborhood coalitions, they will develop
strategies for solving problems in these areas. It will then be the sergeants' responsibility
to delegate thc appropriate problem solving efforts to tbeir respective subor~linates in the
field. It is my intention through ~is plan to move the concept of oomrnunity oriented
policing and problem solving throughout the city of Columbia Heights.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance Police Supplement Hiring Supplement Program contains
certain criteria that will be used as a basis of selection for successful applicants. There
are 100 possible points upon which each applicant will be graded. One section entitled
'Continuation and Retention Plan' amounts to 10 per cent of the selection criteria. It
states as follows, 'Describe how the applicant intends to continue this project and retain
Mayor Donald Murzyn, ~Ir.
Page 2
October I, 1993
the positions created with the project funds following the conclusion of the grant period.
If possible, include an endorsement of the jurisdiction's continuation and retention plan
by local budget authorities."
I have included with this memo an estimated known cost outline for the officers in this
grant period. A quick, review of this reveals that over the life of the grant, the city will
be obligated to pay $233,832 for three officers. The fa'st year after the grant ends, the
cost will be $I80,864 for the three officers. These costs are msde up from wages, fringe
benefits, and other costs which include uniforms and ongoing training costs. The way the
funding formula is outlined in the grant proposal, the federal government will be willing
to pick up 50 per cent of the cost of fringe benefits and salaries, but no other costs. This
is how I arrived at the $233,832 cost figure for the three officers. I have also included
costs for two officers and one officer, should the Council consider that as a possible
strategy.
I anticipate this to be a very competitive process. There is only $75 million available for
towns under 150,000 population. In my contacts with fellow police chiefs throughout the
state of Minnesota, I have yet to come across one who is not going to submit a grant
proposal. Because of this, we will have to have a very well-drafted plan which will have
to include documentation in all of the selection criteria areas. If we cannot gain the
support of the Council for an endorsement of the jurisdiefion's continuation and retention
of requested positions, we will automatically lose I0 points of the selection criteria. I
think by losing these ten points, it will effectively take us out of the competition for the
grant. If that be the case, I do not feel that it is in the best interests of the City and the
Police Department to go to the work of developing the grant and submitting it.
State Office of Drug Policy Crime Prevention Grant
we are also writing a companion grant through the Office of Drug Policy for an
adminisu'ative assistant to the Police Department. This person would be responsible for
researching, recommending and developing alternative methods for responding to police
calls for service. It is anticipated that this will aid us in management of our call for
service load, thus allowing officers more time to interact with citizens and conduct
problem solving. This person will also be an aide to the neighborhood.~org~iT.~tion
efforts and will work with the patrol sergeants along those lines. This position will also
be responsible for researching, recommending, developing and implementing various
volunteer programs within the Police Department that are appropriate and applicable to
us. Also, as part of this grant I will be including adequate monies to provide rather
intense training to the patrol sergeants and officers in the concepts of problem solving and
community oriented policing.
Mayor Donald Murzyn, Jr.
Page 3
October 1, 1993
Grading Criteria
The grading criteria for these two grants is as follows:
Federal Grant
1. Public safety need
2. Strategy
3. Implementation plan
4. Continuation and retention
5. Additional resource commitments
a. Other grants
40%
3O%
10%
10%
10%
State Grant
1. Community need
2. Project description
3. Community collaboration
4. Organization capacity
5. Budget reasonableness
20%
25%
25%
15%
15%
I hope this memo has been informative for you. I will be at the Council meeting if you
have further questions. Should the Council choose to have us enter the competition for
this grant, I again stress the importance of an endorsement or resolution supportinl~ the
Council's commitment to the program and its willingness to continue the positions funded
by this three-year grant program.
DPM:
93-361
Auachments
· ~ CITY COUNCIL LETT~
NeetiuS of: Hay 23, 1994
A A SECTION= ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT= CITY~*NAGER'S
~1 ~PPRO¥~L
NO 6 , , ~--~
NOel 6. C. DATE= 5-19-94 DATEs
/
llmember Jolly arranged a meet/rig between ACCA~ officials to discuss further
consJ.deration of the Leasehold Cooperative Desi~nation of 3932 Central Avenue (Theatre Heishts
Apartments). As the Council recalls, no effective action was taken on this item at the last
zteetJns as a number of motions vere not sustained as a result of a 2-2 deadlock vote.
]~t tt,e meeting, ACCAP presented a further clarification on the use of fund~ns obtained from
a hoBtestead tax deslsnation for the project. ACCAP emphasizes that many of the ~provement8
1:o b~undertaken are items that viii be in need of eventual replacement under the City'e
Hous~nsMaintenance Code. Further, ACCAPexplained the financing structure for the buildin$.
Up t¢, this point, the actual sources of funding for the project were not entirely clear to
City officials.
:~ne ~
pro J,
If t
].~roj ~
on ti
oblil
asic issueunder consideration by the City Council is a finding of fact that the proposed
~ct is consistent with all of the following findinss within state law=
That the grantinS of the homestead treatment of the 22-unit apartment buildins will
facilitate safe, clean, affordable housins for the cooperative members that would
otherwise not be available absent the homestead desi~nation for this property;
That ACCAPhas presented information satisfactory to the Columbia Heishts City Council
showins that the savinss 8a~nered from the homestead desi~nation of the units rill be
used to reduce the tenant's rents or provide a level of furnishings or maintenance not
possible absent the desi~nation~ and
;) That the requirements of para8raphs (b), (d), and (i) of N{--esota Statutes Section
273.124, Subd. 6 have been met by ACCAP (see attached copy of State Law)~ and
~) That the Nayor and City Nanager are directed to enter into a development contract (as
attached Exhibit A) regarding the operation of the leasehold cooperative located at
3952 Central Avenue.
~e Council is uncomfortable with the information or does notunderstand the impact of the
~ct, an alternative is to refer this matter to work session or essentially take no action
~e item until the information is properly presented by ACCAP. Of course, there is some
~ation on the part of the City to advise ACCAP as to what information needs to be
.lied.
~ECO~ENDEDNOTION= Hove to waive the reading of the.resolution, there being ample copies
~avai%able to the public.
~LTERNATIVE HOTION= Hove approval of ~esolution 94 , Resolution of the City Council
of t~e City of Columbia Neishts ~ranting Homestead Classification to the Property Located at
:~932[Central Avenue and Authorization to Enter into Development Contract Regarding the Same.
~LTERNATIVEHOTION= Hove to deny homestead classification to the property located at 3932
,~ent~al Avenue, as information is inadequate.
~LTERNATIVE HOTION~ Nove to table Resolution 94- , Resolution of the City Council of
the~ity of Columbia Heishts ~ranting Homestead Classification to the Property Located at 3932
,~entFal Avenue and Authorization to Enter into Development Contract Regardin8 the Same, and
refe~discussion to work session of Tuesday, May $1, at ? ~.N.
~TERNATIVE HOTION: Take no action on the resolution, however, specify to ACCAP what
lnfo~ation needs to be further clarified.
ACTION~
RESOLUTION 94-
I~F~OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGI-rrs
GRANTING HOMESTEAD CLASSIFICATION TO THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 3932 CENTRAL AVENUE AND AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT REGARDING THE SAME.
WHEREAS, Anoka County Community Action Program, Inc. (ACCAP), an experienced nonprofit corporation
and real property manager, has purchased a 22-unit apartment building in the City of columbia Heights at 3932
Central Avenue.
WHEREAS, pursuant to paragraph (j) of Minnesota Statutes Section 273.124, subd. 6, ACCAP has applied to the
City Council of the City of Columbia Heights to make certain findings with respect to that property now owned
by ACCAP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights, Anoka County,
Minnesota, as follows:
That the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, after holding a public hearing to determine
whether ACCAP, the owner of an apartment building located at 3932 Central Avenue, Columbia Heights,
Minnesota, has submitted sufficient evidence regarding whether this property should receive homestead
classification under Minnesota Statutes Section 273.124, subd. 6 (j), hereby make the following findings:
O)
That the granting of the homestead treatment of the 22-unit apartment building will facilitate
safe, clean, affordable housing for the cooperative members that would otherwise not be available
absent the homestead designation for this property;
(2)
That ACCAP has presented information satisfactory to the Columbia Heights City Council
showing that the savings garnered from the homestead designation of the units will be used to
reduce the tenant's rents or provide a level of furnishing or maintenance not possible absent the
designation; and
(3)
That the requirements of paragraphs (b), (d), and (i) of Minnesota Statutes Section 273.124, subd.
6 have been met by ACCAP.
That the Mayor and City Manager are directed to enter into a development contract (as attached
Exhibit A) regarding the operation of the leasehold cooperative of the property located at 3932
Central Avenue.
Passed the day of ., 1994.
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Joseph Sturdevant, Mayor
Jo-Anne Student, Secretary to the Council
ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM, INC.
1201 89th Avenue NE · Suite 345 · Blaine, MN 55434 · Phone 783-4747 · FAX 783-4700 · TTY 783-4724
A Ut~leo Way
Agcocv
Mr. Pat Hentges
City Manager
City of Columbia Heights
590 40th Avenue N.E.
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
55421
Leasehold Cooperative Status
Theater Heights Apartments
3932 Central Avenue N.E.
Dear Mr. H6ntges:
I am writing tO request that the City Council re-examine our request fbr the necessary findings
to facilitate leasehold cooperative.tax status on the above referenced property. I understand from
our conversation that this action could be scheduled for your May. 23, I994 meeting. ACCAP
staff will be in attendance to answer any questions at that time.
Pat, you raised two (2) questions during our telephone conversatiOn and I. thought a written
response might be helpful for you and the Council members.
I. Are the proposed improvements all really necessary at this time?
The proposed improvements are designed with a look toward the long term maintenance
and condition of this property. We do not want to restrict the worlc to only the
immediate pressing problems as this does nothing but bring the building up to minimum
livability standards. Our proposal is designed to bring the building to a standard that
would reflect positively on the City of Columbia Heights, ACCAP and our tenants. This
standard is not possible without the leasehold cooperative status.
2. What will be the disposition of any "profit" from the operation of this building?
Any excess operating income will be used to, insure that we can maintain affordable
rents,, complete necessary 'and desirable .improvements and to e.qtablish a reserve for
replacement fund.
As you are aware, the net impact of the leasehold cooperative tax status is that without your
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
approval, we will need to reduce our proposed renovation plans by $50,000. The cheapening
of this project will be visible at this project on a long term basis. Our contractor is currently
on the job and we are proceeding on the net impact of denial from the City of Columbia
Heights. If the City Council is open to revisit our request, it would be most helpful and
appreciated, but it is important to recognize that we have a small window of opportunity to act
while we can still effectively modify our construction activities.
We are attempting to set up a meeting with the Mayor prior to this Council meeting. Thank: you
for your cooperation and your efforts to work together in addressing the needs of our residents.
Sincerely,
Executive Director
PM/ch
ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM, INC.
Il as if it were homestead
:
'sidence;
the ad valorem property
.. structure;
d a land lease; and
tanding the fact that the
intervals.
one or more dwellings,
fits, are owned by a cot-
ich person who owns a
~ occupy a dwelling, or
may claim homestead
ling containing several
e building occupied by
description or number,
ment under this subdi-
· ted, nor more than 80
n~gs containing several
,respective units com-
g subdivision, the cot
ag a right to occupy a
fi,. A charitable corpo-
se exempt thereunder
th respect to member
idential participation
:ufactured home park
· 308A, and each per-
is entitled to occupy
~omestead treatment
I as if it were home-
et:
ail valorem property
lure either directly,
gA is wholly owned
m or association.
ta with no outstand-
01 (eX3) hax-exempt
.idents ofthe manu-
; entitling them to
g several dwelling
ating as a nonprofit
s ~under which they
classification must
.sessed in the man-
orations.
g several dwelling
fchapter 80D and
~nts with persons
1095 TAXE.g; lISTING, )k.gSF-.SSMENT 273.124
who occupy a unit in the building and the residency agreement entitles the resident to
occupancy in the building after personal assets are exhausted and regardless of'ability
to pay the monthly maintenance fee, homestead classification.shall be given to each unit
so occupied and the entire building shall be assessed in the manner provided in subdivi-
sion 3 for cooperatives and charitable corporations.
Subd. 6. Leasehold cooperatives. When one or more dwellings or one or more
buildings which each contain several dwelling units is owned by a nonprofit corporation
subject to the provisions of' chapter 317A and qualifying under section $01(c){3) or
$01(c){4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31,
1990, or a limited partnership which corporation or partnership operates the property
in conjunction with a cooperative association, and has received public financing, home-
stead treatment may be claimed by the cooperative association on behalf of the mem-
bers of the cooperativ~ for each dwelling unit occupied by a member of the cooperative.
The cooperative association must provide the assessor with the social security numbers
of'those members. To qualify for the treatment provided by this subdivision, the fol-
lowing conditions must be met:
(a) the cooperative association must be organized under chapter 30gA and all vot-
ing members ofthe board of'directors must be resident tenants of'the cooperative and
must be elected by the resident tenants of the cooperative;
. ,~.~) _t~e..,c~pe.~t..ive associa, tio. n must hav.e a lease for occupancy of'the pro rt for
a tc:m ol flt'least .it/ ears ' · · · . pe Y
~ la. ~n[J .... y , w. mcn permits the cooperative assoclatlon, while not in
t.oel.aul..t on the lease, lo participate materially in the management of the property,
[liac!uding material participation in' establishing budgets, setting rent levels, and hiring
~ .supervising a management agent; '
t'---(c) to the extent permitted under state or federal law, the cooperative association
must have a right under a written agreement with the owner to purchase the property
ff the owner proposes to sell it; if the cooperative association does not purchase the
property it is offered for sale, the owner may not subsequently sell the properly to
another purchaser at a price lower than the price at which it was offered for sale to the
. coope..rative association unless the cooperative association approves the sale;
(d) a minimum of 40 percent of the cooperative association's members must have
incomes at or less than 60 percent of area median gross income as determined by the
United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under section
142(dX2XB) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986, ~ amended through December 3 I,
I991. For purposes of this clause, "member income means the income ora member
et__..~sting at the time the member acquires cooperative membership;
(e) ifa limited partnership owns the property, it must include as the managing gen-
eral partner a nonprofit organization operating under the provisions of chapter 317A
and qualifying under section 50I(cX3) or 501(cX4) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended through December 3 I, 1990, and the limited partnership agreement
must provide that the managing general partner have sutiicient powers so that it materi-
ally participates in the mnnngement and control of the limited partnership;
(f) prior to becoming a member ora leasehold cooperative described in this subdi-
vision, a person must have received notice that (I) describes leasehold cooperative
property in plain language, including but not limited to the effects of classification
under this subdivision on rents, property taxes and tax credits or refunds, and operating
expenses, and (2) states that copies of the articles of incorporation and bylaws of the
cooperative association, the lease between the owner and the cooperative association,
a sample sublease between the cooperative association and a tenant, and, if the owner
is a partnership, a copy of the limited partnership agreement, can be obtained upon
written request at no charge from the owner, and the owner must send or deliver the
materials within seven days after receiving any request;
(g) ifa dwelling unit of a building was occupied on the 60th day prior to the date
on which the unit became leasehold cooperative properly described in this subdivision,
the notice described in paragraph (f) must have been sent by first class mail to the occu-
pant of the unit at least 60 days prior to the date on which the unit became leasehold
273.12~ TAXES; LISTING, ASSESSMENT
1096
cooperative property. For purposes of the notice under this paragraph, the copies of the
documents referred to in paragraph (f) may be in proposed version, provided that any
subsequent material alteration of those documents made after the occupant has
requested a copy shall be disclosed to any occupant who has requested a copy of thc
document. Copies ofthe articles of incorporation and certificate of limit~! partnership
shall be filed with the secretary of state after the expiration of the 60-day period unless
the change to leasehold cooperative status does not proceed;
(h) the county attorney of the county in which the property is lOCated must certify
to the assessor that the property meets the requirements of this subdivision;
~) the public financing received must be from at least one of the following sources:
(1) tax increment financing proceeds used for the acquisition or rehabilitation of
the buildin~ or interest rate write-dowus relating to the acquisition of the building;
(2) government issued bonds exempt from taxes under section 103 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended throogh December 31, 1991, the proceeds of which
are used for the acquisition or rehabilitation of the building
(3) programs under section 22 l(d)(3), 202, or 236, of Title II of the National Hous-
ing Act;
· (4) rental housing program funds under Section 8 of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 or the market rate family graduated payment mortgage program funds
administered by the Minnesota housing fumnce agency that are used for the acquisition
or rehabilitation of the building;
(5) low*income housing credit under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended through December 31, 1991;
(6) public financing provided by a local government used for the acquisition or
rehabilitation of the building; including grants or loans from (i) federal community
development block grants; (ii) HOME block grants; or (iii) residential rental bonds
issued under chapter 474A; or
(7) other rental housing pix)gram funds provided by the Minnesota housing
finance agency for the acquisition or rehabilitation of the building
--' (j) at the time of the initial request for homestead classification or of any transfer
of ownership of the properly, the governing body of the municipality in which the prop-
erty is located must hold a public hearing and make the following findings:
(1) that the granting of the homestead treatment ofthe apartment's units will facil-
itate safe, clean, affordable housing for the cooperative members that would otherwise
not be available absent the homestead designation;
(2) that the owner has presented information satisfactory to the governing body
showing that thc savings garnered from the homestead designation of the units will be
used to reduce tenant's rents or provide a level of furnishing or maintenance not possi-
ble absent the designation; and
(3) that the requirements of pa~graphs Co), (d), and (i) have been met.
Homestead treatment must be afforded to units occupied by members of the coop-
erative association and the units must be assessed as provided in subdivision 3, pro-
v~ded that any unit not so occupied shall be classified and assessed pursuant to the
appropriate class. No more than three acres of land may, for assessment purposes, be
included with each dwelling unit that qualifies for homestead treatment under this sub-
division.
Subd. 7. Le~ed buildings or land. For pu~ases of class I determinations, home*
steads include: ·
(a) buildings and appurtenances owned and used by the occupant as a permanent
residence which are located upon land the title to which is vested in a person or entity
other than the occupant;
(b) all buildings and appurtenances located upon land owned by the occupant and
used for the purposes of a homestead together' with the land upon which they are
located, if all of the following criteria are met~ _
1097
(1) the occupant is
(2) the occupant is
a~tinst the property,
(3) the occupant !~
and appurtenances; ·
(4) the term of the
(5) the occupant h~
Any taxpayer mee
county assessor, or the
section 2?3.063, in wri
oceupyin~ the buildin~
Subd. 8. Ho~
ily farm corporation a~
lb under ~'ction 273.1~
homestead occupied by
actively engaged in fm
Homestead treatment a
potation or parm~hip
corporation' and ~fnmi
the number of allowat
exceed 12.
(b) In addition tO~l
by corporatious or part~
tural land and occupie,
ended in farming on
as class 2a property or
~raph (b), but the prol~
land surrounding the h(
the use of the dwellin~
be located on it.
Subd. 9.
used for the purpose ol
the purpose of a home
Any taxpayer mm
a~sor, or the ~
2?3.063, in writing; pri
this ~ubdivision. The
that is partially homes~
stead by Sune 1 of a ye
The county assess~
their a~mment and ta
If homestead classi
will clarify the proper
payable in the followinl
this subdivision, which
entitled to receive horn(
375.192.
The county asses~
county no later than $~
ment to file an applica~
Subd. 10. Real
chased for occupancy
chaser is prevented fmr
by re, on of federal or
~OM
by and between the ¢£ty os Co1~ Height-
County Community Aution Pro, ram, Inc.
curVorn=ion ("D~veloper") ·
(,city.) ;"
Minmaota nonp~o~it
W~TNESSETHt
W~T~Fm~, th~ Developer i~ ~he owner o~ 2~-unit a~artment
Mi~, ao=~ , which h~ u legal dosuriD=ion o~ ~CS 12, 13 ~d 14,
Block 62, .,Colu~ia Hsi~h~ ~e~ to Mi~ea~lis, ~o~
Mi~u~o=P", ~km Coun~,
WgHREAS, the Developer i, nonprofit corporation with a
purpose cz providing a~fo=~lo housing =o low to modo~au,.
pe~OO~S in Anok= County, Minn=aota.
elderly personm liv£ng within ch, ci=y float have low to
income- that need ~ood affor~abl~ housing.
WHEREAS, Mince ~0=, ~taCut¢ section 973.12%(6) provide~ that
Minnesotm nonprofit eo~Doration can receive homestea6 tax
treatment £or a property that h~ luaeuhold cooperative
established. The Developer i ~em~%ing to obtain homestead
wE~, Minnesota Sta~u~ Section 9~.124(6)(J) providee
th~ governing bo~y of the mun~cipalitY in which the pro~er=y
located must hold ~ Dublic hea~ing and make certain Zin~inge.
~, =h~ City ha~ agr,ed ~haC it will make thoue finding~
purau~nt to ~h,. AtatUte i~ the Developer agree, to the
1. Thac the Developer will limit th~ housing within
]~tild£n~ to ,en£oxa an~ di,,nbla615o~oonu.
2. Tha~ ~h~Developer will giv, ,, ~igh~ el zirst ~efusal to
Ch~ ooopera~ivem~mbcr~ to pur~h~ th( bu£lmin~ t=
price on ~nven£ent
That the Dovuloper will make lmprovomunu~ orr educe
with th~ meals' t~at it is -avlng by receiving the
NOW, ~g~R.~, in consideration o~ the mutual covenants
expre~ ed heroin, it i hcrObY agree~ u. ~ollowo~
TO ~7~2~01 P. 03
~dl~, 6U~ & ST~'FEN LRiJ + 78347~
NO. 45E PB~3
That the Developer and the City a~ree that the current
rmeldents o! the building shall be allowed to stay and
become ~emhars of the cooperative. That .future men, ers
o£ the cooperatAvs should Be limit®d to a group
consisting c£ any ~ereon ~ver thm age of S0 and/or any
person with a physical disability.
That the meveloper shall, as part ~£ the ~mmtar ~ease
with She cooperative association, enter into an agreement
with the coopazaciv~ assoc~a~lon &ll~wA~ ~ ~he
purchase o~ the property by the coo~era~ive unda~ the
For ~he sum e~ the Developer's oos~ ~o purchase the
property, plus the essa o£ improvemen~m to the
prol~.r~¥, plu~ other cash deficits £unded by the
Developer, lees camh withdrawn by the Developer.
That the Developer agrees that th~ savin~ garnered ~y
the receipt o£ homestead ~ax treatmen~ o£ ~hAs prc~ez~y
shall be ussd Co ~e ~m~ovmmex~s on the p~opert¥ or
reduce rents, and co keep the ~opertymaintained in a
high standard. Upon the w~l~enrequss~ o~ ~he City, the
Developer will apply ~hs tax ~avi~gs as fOllOWS: ~1£Cy
percent ~SO%) to previdir~ additional Eunda for
rezovation and fif~ypercen[ (SO~) ~o reducing the rent
cE qualified seniors and disabled residents.
Thin A~reeu~m2 shell be binding on the successors and aomig~m
~hm p&r~lee.
of
___, 2994.
i
ATTeSTs
~lty Clerk
CITY:
CITY OF COL~]MBIA HEIGHTS
ACTZON PROGRAM, XNC.
Ztm:
i
Mar .~, 1994 l~:08PM
! u ~8~2801
~TAT~ OF MINN~S0TA )
) 3.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument wa~ acknowledged before m~ thL
day o~ _, 199.', by ~a
, ~he ~yo~ and ~i~Y Clo~ 0~ ~h( Oi~y o~
be~lf ot th( .......... . . ·
~TATE OF MINNESOTA )
) as
COUNTY0~ )
The ~orego£ng instrument was ackn~wledgodbofore me this
day of , 1994, by _.
~h~ O~ A~oka CoLu%~y C~mm~ni~¥
Action Progmam, in~.,
~ the co~ation.
Nota~ gubl~u
THIS INgT~UMBNT WAS D~D BY:
BARNA, G~ZY & STEF~, LTD. (CMS)
400 N~thtown Fi~nci~l
200 ~n ~agi~ ~uleva=~
M~a~lis,
FROM TO 9~22801 P.05
THEATER HEZGHTS
3932 COFTRALAVB
IFFICT Or TAX CL~SXFXCATXO~I
2994 AlSeSaed Value of building
Budget £oz planned renovetion
IMxinua increase in budget possible
Mew renovation budget with homestead taxation
REolanation of tax i&vin~s:
1994 estimated taxel payable
1994 eltimted ~&xel p&¥1LbXe homestead
Tax Savi~gs realized
Less additionaX pertinent to City
Hot reduction in taXel
AYailab2e £or dol~k lervXce (dibs coverege 1.15)
Additional debt possible with reduced taxes
Additional debt possible and
AdditioGal reduced re~t for seniors and disabled
$328,200.00
$150,000.00
$ S0,000,00
$200,000.00
11,421.67
4.278~0o
7,143.67
5,733.45
4,985.00
49,850.00
27,940.00
2,520.00
ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAiVi, INC.
201 89th Avenue NE · Suite 345 · Blaine, MN 55434 · Phone 783-4747 · FAX 783-4700 · TrY 783.4724
Theater Heights
3932 Central Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN
Proposed Funding Plan
May 9, 1994
Expenses
Acquisition
Basic/Minimum
Rehabilitation
Recommended Additions
Contingency
CITY OF COL'L: ...... ' _' ;'rS
$337,000
150,000
45,000
5,000
$537,000
Revenue
HUD Rental
Rehabilitation Grant Loan
MFFIA Housing Trust Fund Loan
Federal Home Loan Bank
Board Loan
Anoka County CDBG Loan
ACCAP Investment
MHFA End Loan
TOTAL
$ 75,000
50,000
75,000
185,000
22,000
130,000
$537,000
This report is based on our investment of ail leasehold cooperative tax
savings into proposed building improvements.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1201 89th Avenue NE Suite 345 Blaine, MN 55434 Phone 783-4747 · FAX 783-4700 TTY 783-472
RENT STRUCTURE
Theater Heights
3932 Central Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN
May 9, 1994
RENTS WITH
NO RENT
ORIGINAL REDUCTION RENT WITH
RENTS AS FROM $2520.00 RENT
BUILDING LEASEHOLD REDUCTION
PROPOSED WAS COOPERATIVE FROM TAX
RENTS PURCHASED TAX SAVINGS SAVINGS
1 BR Unit 375 280 280
Efficiency 300 255 255
1 BR unit, low 375 280 260
income
elderly/disabled
Efficiency, low 300 255 235
income
elderly/disabled
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
TO 97B22B01 P.~,
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
· .' .... '~ ........ ~ ~ Ave:'~l,~i ' ' '"'~""'-'"'"'"'"'"'-' ..........
:~G~I~) 7~m. qoo~ - '-' ............
! I
/"~' "SERVICE IS OUR BUSINESS"
~932 Central Av.. 35 30 24 41 0073
T~xes Payablu 1992
$ 5,902,q6 SCHOOL
2,601.~6 COUNTY
1,992.43 CITY
11,138.~9 TOTAL
The above estimated taxes payab1~
Taxes Payable In 1993 end 1994 ire Title 11
~s_t_lm~t,ed' ~yabl,_ 19~4 Tax
$ 6,070.95
2,62~.53
2,25q,72
11,~21.G7
In 1994 are based on e value of $328,200 of which
$282,600 is at Title II rate and/'~qS,600 ls at apartment rate,
If the value of $328,200 was t~xed at the apartment rate, the £STIHAT£D tax payable In
1994 would be:
SCHOOL $ 7,263.29
COUNTY
CITY 2,697,54
TOTAL 13~664.89 ESTIHATED
If th~- wluL of $328,200 was taxed at the homesteaded v~lu, because of each of the
units me: the quallflcatlon of cooperative membership and Income, th~ ESTIMATED t~
payable would be $h,278.
Other Tltlu II propertle. In thls City are: The Boulev,~rd~ Royc~ Place, Heights Manner,
and Peters Place .
KEXGHTS
AVE
BuildAng'e CbA~&c~erLet~cez
Date Butltz
Number of Unites
Gross building:
OnsAte parkings
1959 (35 years old)
22, Xl e£ficieacies and XX one bedrooms
16,600 SY
12 uncovered off street
back.
Renovation Scope,
Replace roof
Clean and tuckpoint brick, repair stucco
Replace concrete stair entry
Overlay parking lot with 2" of asphalt
Repair retaining walls
Add landscaping
Build trash duuoster enclosure
Provide mini blinds throughout
Replace appliances as necessar~
Replace floor coverings ae necessary
Repaint and decorate all units and hallways
Repair bathroo~ tile and tub enclosures
Up,Late pltuabing0 electrical, and heating
Install new fire rated ttuit entry doors
Additions~
Xns2all longer life roof
Replace retaining walls, not repair
Construct concrete block dumpster mmclosura
Modify lower level to be wheel chair accessible
and add an o£fice/meeting teen
Replace all appliances and floor coverings
RepXace aXX countertops and ~iCchen s~uke
Refinish cabinets
Install bathroom exlmuat fane to vent moisture
~M
TO 97822801
P. OB
THEATER HEIGHTS
3932 ~ENTHAL ~VE
EFFECT OP TAx CLASSIFI~ATION
OT~ER CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Raduction in rent 1,~ caretaker o~ $120
Net [ncrua ~e in NOI
$ 5,733.45
~ll 2~20.00
$ 3,213.3~
$ 27,940.00
Rent =eduction o~ $10 per unit x 12 month~ x ~1 units
- no re~t =eduction ~o= =u~idunt manager's unit
$ 2,S20.00
intoru~t ratu 8~
amortization 20 ¥,
6eb~ cove=age 1.15
or 9~
o= 25 y~a=~
:
-!
J
i
) II.
COUR~Y O~ ANOEA )
£ollow.:
("ACCA;") ·
xJ~u~sota Statutew ~eot~on 373.~3~, ~ubd. em(a).
3. Th~C ACCA~ hms p~ol~u&'C¥ loc&Ced mt 3932 Contzr&L Avenue,
Columbia He~ghts, M~nnesota.
4. That &CCAP ham appl%ed to both the County of AnO~a and
~he C~t¥ o~ Co2umb%& Ko,ghee purluant to Hi~elota Statu~e8 ~ction
2'73.~24, s~. ~ E~r homestead trmmt~nt ~ ~to D~o~sed leasehold
lubd.~ ~a(a), ACCAP 8~a~el and represents to the Anoka County
AC~orne~ and to the City Council for the city o£ Columbia He£ght$
~ection 273.~24, lu~. 6,
6. ThaC ACCAP will eo~ply wXth the requirements of this
statute by Caking the ~Ollowing aoCioni;
~¥ execut%ng the 20-year ~eaoehold cooperat2ve lease
which hal been prepared byACCAP'I ooun~e[ and approved
as Co £o~m by b~ch the leeks C~ounty Atto~'r~¥ and the
Attorney for the C~ty o~ ColumbXa He,ghee.
pe~e~t o~ t~ Area wdi~ ~ww A~o aw detemined by
the ~i~ed states 8~..~m~ o~ x~wL~ ~d ~ban
~velopMn~ ~er ~c~on 142 (d) (~) (B) O~ ~he
n~onue ~de o~ lOBS, aw ~n~d c~gh ~oe~er
Xn the rehabilitation o£ the propex~cy, ACCAPvXllreceive
houaLng program funds provided by tl~ Minnslota Housing
F~nance Agency for tbs rehabilitation of thLs 22-unit
building.
l~f
If
'1
TO 9782280i
NO.4S~ P~3~
YOUR AFFIANT ~YETH NOT.
and sworn to befor~ m~
day O~ _ =, 1994.
Notar~ Public
T~r~TER HEIGHTS
3932 CENTRAL AVE
EFFECT OF TAX CLASSIFICATION
OTHER CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Increased renovation and rent reduction=
Net reduction in taxes
Reduction in rent less caretaker of $120
Net increase in NOI
Additional debt possible
$ 5,733.45
$ 2,520.00
$ 3,213.35
$ 27,940.00
Rent reduction of $10 per unit x 12 months x 21 units
- no rent reduction for resident manager's unit
$ 2,520.00
Debt assumptions:
interest rate
amortization
debt coverage
8% or
20 years or 25 years
1.15
T~n~ ~TE R HEIGHTS
3932 CENTRAL AVE
EFFECT OF TAX CLASSIFICATION
1994 Assessed Value of building
Budget for pl-n~ed renovation
M~ximum increase in budget possible
New renovation budget with homestead taxation
ExDlanatio~ of tax
1994 estimated taxes payablD
1994 est/mated taxes payable homestead
Tax savings realized
'Less additional payment to City
Net reduction ~n taxes
Available ~or debt service (debt coverage 1.15)
Additional debt possibl~ with reduced taxes
or
Additional debt possible and
Additional reduced rent for seniors and disabled
$328,200.00
$150,000.00
$ ...50,000,00
$200,000.00
$ 11,421.67
.$. 4,278.00
$ 7,143.67
1,410.21
$ 5,733.45
$ 4,985.00
$ 49,850.00
$ 27,940.00
$ 2,520.00
Tm~TER HEIC.~TS
~932 CEHTR~ AVE
Bui. ldinq' s Characteristic
Date Built:
~,mBer of Units:
Gross building:
Onsite parking:
Description:
1959 (35 years old)
22, 11 efficiencies and il one bedrooms
16,600 SF
12 uncovered off street
2 1/2 story walkup, brick face, stucco sides and
back.
Renovation Scope:
Replace roof
Clean and tuckpoint brick, repair stucco
Replace concrete stair entry
Overlay parking lot with 2' of asphalt
Repair retaining walls
Add landscaping
Build trash d-~ster enclosure
Provide mini blinds throughout
Re~lace appliances as necessary
P~place floor coverings as necessary
Repaint and decorate all units and h~llways
Repair bath~oam tile ~-d tub enclosures
Update pl-mhing, electrical, and heating
Install new fire rated unit entry doors
Additions:
Install longer life roof
Replace retaining walls, not repair
Construct concrete block dumpster enclosure
Modify lower level to be wheel chair accessible
and add an'office/meeting room
Replace all appliances and floor coverings
Replace all countertops ~-d kitchen sinks
Refinish cabinets
Install bathroom exhaust fans to vent moisture
· CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
"SERVICE IS Om B~INESS'
2-7--.94
3332 Central Ave. 35 30 24 41 0073
Taxes Payable 1333
$ 5,902.46 SCHOOL
2,601.46 COUNTY
1,99~.43 CITY
11,138.49 TOTAL
Taxes Payable in 1993 and 1994 are Title II
'E~tlmated Payable 1994 Tax
$ 6,070.95
2,624.53
2,254.72
11,421.67
The above estimated taxes 'payable in 1994 are based on e value of $328,200 of which
$282,600 is at Title II rate and~5,600 is at apartment rate.
If the value of $328,200 was taxed at the apartment rate, the ESTIHATED tax payable in
1994 would be:
SCHOOL $ 7,263.29
COUNTY 3,149.O0
CITY 2,6~7.54
TOTAL 13,664.89 ESTIMATED
If the value of $328,200 was taxed at the homesteaded value because of each of the
_.units.met the qualification of cooperative membership and i.ncome, the ESTIMATED tax
payable would be $4,278.
Other Title il properties in this City are: The Boulevard, Royce Place, Heights Mannor,
and Peters Place .
ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM, INC.
1201 69th Avenue NE · Suite 345 · Blaine, MN 55434 · Phone 783-4747 · FAX 783-4700 · TTY 783-472~
February 17, 1994
Patrick Hentges
City of Columbia Heights
590 40th Ave
Columbia Heights, Mn 55421-3978
re: 3932 Central Ave (Theater Heights)
MANAGER
CiTY OF COLUMSlA i.E. IGHTS
Dear Mr. Hentges
Enclosed are financial projections that reflect the alternatives I
presented to the Council. I used your real estate tax figures which I
agree with even though your tax figures reflect less of savings than I
roughly estimated. The savings generated from the leasehold cooperative
~after paying the City $442.82 in lost revenue permits
ACCAP
to
reduce
rents on average by $10 per unit and increase the scope of the
renovation $30,000. Or as certain members of the Council seemed to want
the renovation could be in_creased $50,000 if no further rent reduction
is passed on. ~
If the Council makes a positive factual finding we would agree to fund
a $174,000 to $194,000 (depending on the rent level alternative used)
renovation verses the $150,000 we had otherwise planned. A lot can be
done with $30,000. Especially when all the basics will be taken care of
with the funds already co~,m~tted. There is never enough money in a
construction project.
Additionally ACCAP would agree to sell t~ebuilding to the cooperative
Jar our cost plus any additional capital /nvested to fund negative cash
flow or additional improvements less any cash withdrawn. In other
words, no escalator for inflation or appreciation. This language will
be put in the Master Lease as the Cooperative's buyout price.
,, // son _ _
~-Houm~i~ Development Specialist
Please giveme call if you think of anything else I can provide.
As I discussed at the meeting this project goes through regardless of
the Council's willingness to contribute by making a positive factual
finding that the tax savings will be used to reduce rents or provide
for additional renovation.
I We agree that
new residents
language should be added to the Master Lease requiring
to be seniors or disabled.
o~
o~o
o~
44,44-44-44,
o
o c ~
LERGUE OF MN CITIES
TEL:612-490-O072
.eague of Minnesota Cities
~490 Tm~..utoa Avea~ Nof~
Mag 10 9~ 15:~2 No.O09 P.02
May 10, 1994
I~ROM:
?amWhtch Received WDE Landfill Settlement Offers
nik, Sr. Intergovernmental Relations Representative
Deadline for WI)It Settlement -- Bxtension Until June 15, 1994.
Because tho legislature passed the landfill cleanup bill (H.F;3086), thc law firm representing
the WDI~ Group has granted a blanket extension until Juno 15, 1994, to all recipients of their
effort of settlement dated in mid-April.
Cons~uently. do not pay. by the May deadline speclfl~l in your city's lettG~.
Because the bill is quite complicated, particularly where reimbursement for these payments is
concerned, any payment which is tendered to the WDB Oroup may not bo paid back by the
state for five or six years.
Given the circumstances, it is our strong advice to wait for further information prior to
making any settlement decision.
Because our fax capability does not yet fully extend to your city attorney, we urge you to
consult them regarding this matter. Please contact mo ff you have any questions.
JJJ:mjd
LT'RGUE"OF MN cITIES .......TE'[':61~-490:'0072
League of Minnesota Citie~
~ IN~O ~ Av~nm North
May 2, 1994
FROM:
M~-'OT"~I ...... T6-rt2 No.018 P.01
Sr. ~[ntergovommental Relations Representative ~-,
LandfLll Cleanup .- WDE Letters ~
As anticipated, attorneys representing companies that are Cleaning up the WDI~ landfill
located in Andover, Minnesota, have started the "cost-recovery. portion of the Suporfund
litigation by sending offers of settlement to companies and cities which they claim disposed
of waste at tho WD~ landfill.
If your city has been notified of this action by letter from the Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty &
Bennett law £mn, please let me know u soon as possib!~,:,
This issue is currently being considered by a legislative conference committee (meeting this
week on H.P.3086). We hope to help draft the legislation in such a way as to eliminate this
particular cost-recovery action and other Superfund claims.
Also, since the Legislature will be deciding this issue in the next few days, please contact
your legislator ~ if your city has received this letter and ask them to strongly support
passage of }I./:.3086 with language sufficient to end this legal form of cxtonion.
Finally, I would advise against making any payments to the trust until the legislature acts
later this week..
Thank you for your prompt mqxm~.
JJJ:mjd
Fridley Chamber of Commerce
%m
6401 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
(612) 571-9781
April 7, 1994
Patrick Hentges
City of Columbia Heights
590 40th Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
aPR 1 1 1994
CI]')' OF C:OL',JII4BIA HEN~TS
Dear Patrick,
As ¥ou know, the Fridley Chamber of Commerce bas qrouped together
with other chambers and business organizations in our area to
form the Business Landfill Coalition. This coalition has been
dedicated to obtaining meaningful legislation passed concerning
the cleanup of landfills in Minnesota.
The Business Landfill Coalition is requesting a $500.00 donation
from your city to be applied toward the coalition. Other public
entities that have contributed or plan to contribute include: the
City of Blaine, City of Ham Lake, City of Mounds View City of New
Brighton, City of Anoka, and the City of Andover. The coalition
was established to fund lobbying efforts for alternatives to the
Superfund Cleanup. All money raised will go and is going toward
paying our lobbyist, North State Advisors. To date, we have
raised close to $17,000.00 of the $20,000.00 needed to fill our
commitment to North State Advisors.
This effort was established in response to the Oak Grove cleanup.
Many business establishments in the Columbia Heights Area have
been impacted as was th~ C~ty._of Columbia Heiqhts,~by the
situation in Oak Grove. To date, over 140 businesses and public
entities have sent in money in response to this issue.
If ¥ou have any questions concerning this issue, please feel free
to contact me at 571-9781. Thank you.
Most Sincere~j~~ /
~eicdul~.Ylv?/D~.br~crtoOrf Commerce
3400 CITY C~NTER
THIRTY THRI~ SOUTH SIXTH ~
MINNF~, kONNE~ 55402-3?96
TELEPHONE 612 · 343 · 28OO
FRANK W .LANT. JR. RICH^RD ^. MOORE..~R F~%X 6]2 · 333 · 0066
JOHN W MOOTY WILLIAM L KILLION
MELVIN R MOOTY ELIZABETH W NORTON
RUSSELL M BENNETT JUDITH BEVIS I.ANGEVIN T~VX 9]0 · 576 · 27~8
CLIIITON A ~::HROEDER JOHN E. laROWER
C. BLAINE HARSTAD THOMAS DARLING VIRGINIA ~ e'CHUBERT
EDVlARD J CALLAHAN. JR. JOHN M NICHOLS GEORGE R. WOOD
JAMES S $1MONSON BARBARA R. HAUSER GAYLEN L KNACK
RIC ~ARD N. FLINT ALAN T. HELD JEFFREY C. ANDERSON
MACLAY R HYDE DAVID N MOOTY AMY J. KLOBUCHAR
IIRLICE O. GRUSSlNG RICHARD A HACKETT TAMARA HJELLE OLDEN
C. STEVEN WILSON WILLIAM D KLEIN
Jo. N s~ C~UCH S-SAN L SEGAL DIRECT DIAL: 3 4 3 -- 2 8 6 6 J. FFREY O. F,CK
I}A%ID T. BENNETT NICHOLAS N. NIERENGARTEN NANCY ROETMAN MENZEL
QUENTIN R. WITTROCK
NOI[L P. MULLER KATHLEEN S TILLOTSON aprxx ,
GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, MOOTY 6f BENNETt, P.A.
Cc.
OF COUNSEL
D. JAMES N'ELSEN
ROBERT A ~TEIN
PAUL R. MOOTY
City of Columbia HeiGhts
City Offices
590 40th Avenue N.E.
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
RE: Waste Disposal Engineering (WDE) Site, Andover, MN
Cost-Recovery Litigation - Offer of Settlement
City of Columbia Heights
Dear Sir/Madam:
Our firm has been retained as litigation counsel by the Waste
Disposal EnGineering (WDE) Group. The WDE Group is comprised of
various companies which are taking the lead in implementing and
funding cleanup of the WDE landfill located in Andover, Minnesota. We
have confirmed that waste generated by your company was disposed of at
the WDE landfill, and consequently, your company is liable for part of
the cleanup costs.
This letter will serve as notice that the WDE PRP Group intends to
pursue your company for recovery of the costs associated with cleaning
up the landfill. Certain members of the WDE PRP Group have elected
not to pursue their claims against your company. They have assigned
their claims to the Group and consequently will not share in any
recovered proceeds. The claims assigned by these group members will
be fully and finally resolved as a result of a settlement with the
Group. As explained in greater detail below, your company's share of
liability for the cleanup of the WDE Site is $2,500.00. In order to
avoid the costs of litigation, the Group has authorized us to make a
one-time settlement offer to your company in the amount of $2,000.00.
This offer will only remain open until Friday, May 13, 1994, after
which the Group will insist on full payment of your share, together
with all other amounts which are recoverable under law. The early
settlement offer is intended to promote prompt settlement.
You should consider the following information in deciding whether
it is in your company's interest to settle with the WDE Group.
City of Columbia Heights
City Offices
Page 2.
April 15, 1994
I. The WDE Site.
The WDE Site is located in Andover, Anoka County, Minnesota in the
southeast quadrant of the intersection of County Road 16 and Crosstown
Boulevard. Landfilling operations were conducted at the Site from the
1960s to around 1984. Industrial, commercial and residential waste
were all accepted for disposal at the Site.
In September of 1983, U.S. EPA placed the WDE Site on the National
Priorities List, a list of sites representing the most serious threat
to human health and the environment. Members of the WDE Group then
funded a remedial investigation of the Site under a Consent Order
entered into with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). This
investigation revealed the presence of hazardous substances at the
Site, including several volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as
methylene chloride, 1,1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
tetrahydrofuran, methyl ethyl ketone, benzene, xylene, vinyl chloride
and 1,1,2-trichloroethylene. Several other hazardous substances such
as semi-VOCs, including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and
thirty-two (32) heavy metals were also found in the soil and
groundwater. The presence of these hazardous substances is consistent
with the use of the Site as a mixed industrial, commercial and
municipal landfill, and resulted from receiving waste generated from a
variety of sources, including manufacturing, construction and
demolition, printing, dry cleaning, automotive repairs, oil
re-refining, and solid waste containing hazardous substances.
In December, 1987 U.S. EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD)
setting forth the cleanup actions required for the Sit~, including
construction of a landfill cap, and groundwater extraction/treatment
system. The WDE Group is currently fronting the costs of implementing
the ROD remedy. Documents containing detailed information regarding
the operation and use of the Site, the contamination which is present,
and the remedy which is being implemented to clean up the
contamination are available to the public for review at the following
location:
Anoka County Community Health
and Environmental Services
Anoka County Government Center
Room 360
2100 Third Avenue
Anoka, Minnesota 55304
As an alternative, the Group has prepared a packet of selected
documents summarizing this information. This packet consists of
Agency background information, U.S. EPA's Record of Decision, the
Consent Decrees with the MPCA and U.S. EPA, and U.S. EPA's Unilateral
Administrative Order. This package may be purchased from us for a
cost of $18.20 (our reproduction and postage costs).
II. Costs of the Cleanup.
The total cleanup cost which the Group seeks to recover is '
City of Columbia Heights
City Offices
Page 3.
April 15, 1994
approximately $24,210,000. These costs are identified in Exhibit 1 to
this letter and are briefly summarized below.
Remedial Investigation/Feasib%lity Study (RI/FS) costs relate to a
study performed at Group expense in the mid-1980s. This study served
as the basis for U.S. EPA's ultimate ROD relating to the appropriate
cleanup activities at the Site.
Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) costs relate to the actual
remedial activities at the Site. In addition, past and future
operation and maintenance costs relating to on-going remedial
activities are separately itemized.
Access costs refer to amounts paid to third-parties for access to
the Site to implement remedial measures.
Administrative costs include such things as fees and expenses
incurred in negotiating with U.S. EPA, MPCA and others over the
appropriate nature, scope, and extent of remedial activities, and
funding of those activities. It also includes financial management,
accounting fees and other costs neccessary to implement remediation.
U.S. EPA incurred various costs relating to the site investigation
and cleanup effort. Subsequently, U.S. EPA asserted a claim against
members of the Group to recover those costs as well as future
administrative costs. Thereafter, members of the Group entered into a
Consent Decree with U.S. EPA by which the Group has paid $555,135 in
past costs and is obligated to pay approximately $1,257,846 in future
costs to U.S. EPA.
II. Basis For Your Company's Liability.
A. Discovery of New Information.
In early 1993, the Group gained access to previously
unavailable documents which present a comprehensive picture of the
parties who contributed waste to the WDE Site. These documents
include (but are not limited to) landfill tickets prepared by the
owner/operator of the site and invoices to customers from the waste
haulers associated with the Site. These records provide documentary
evidence of disposal of your company's waste at the WDE Site This
voluminous information was not available to the U.S. EPA, MP~A or the
Group at the time these parties initially evaluated liability for
cleanup costs. Therefore, it is erroneous to assume that because you
have not been previously contacted by U.S. EPA, the MPCA or the Group
that you have no responsibility for cleanup of the Site.
B. Triqger of Liability.
As a user of the Site, your company is a ,'responsible person"
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA or federal Superfund), 42 U.S.C. Sections
9601-9675, as amended, as a person who "arranged for disposal" of
hazardous substances. 42 U.S.C.A. Section 9607(a) (3). Your company
City of Columbia Heights
City Offices
Page 4.
April 15, 1994
is also liable as a responsible person under the Minnesota
Environmental Response and Liability Act (MERLA or Minnesota
Superfund), Minn. Stat. Sections l15B.01-115B.36.
You should be aware that Superfund liability is triggered by
the release or even the threatened release of hazardous substances,
not just hazardous waste. Many people mistakenly assume that their
wastes were not hazardous and consequently they have no liability. To
the contrary, many types of wastes erroneously thought to be innocuous
contain hazardous substances. By way of example, many types of office
supplies, paints and paint products, cleaners, batteries, waxes,
polishes, adhesives, caulking compounds, de,teasers, electrical
equipment and components, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides,
solvents, and lubricants/oils contain hazardous substances. The
presence of even small amounts of hazardous substances can trigger
liability.
C. Nature of Liability.
Liability under federal Superfund, as well as under the
Minnesota Superfund is retroactive, strict, and joint and several.
summarize, this means:
To
1. Retroactive Liability. Superfund applies retroactively to
impose liability for generation and disposal of wastes containing
hazardous substances at any time the WDE Site was in operation. The
fact that disposal may have taken place many years ago and before
passage of the federal and Minnesota Superfund legislation is
irrelevant.
2. Strict Liability. There may be liability under Superfund
regardless of fault. It is not necessary that your company intended
to cause pollution, or even that it acted wrongfully or negligently.
For instance, even if your company was in compliance with
then-existing statutes, regulations and ordinances governing the
disposal of wastes, if your company's waste contains hazardous
substances and these wastes are present at the Site, liability will be
imposed under Superfund.
3. Joint and Several Liability. Liability under Superfund is
joint and several. This means your company may be compelled to pay
the entire cost of cleanup, regardless of the relative volume or
toxicity of the waste your company sent to the Site. As a result,
your company is liable not only for its share of responsibility, but,
~n addition, it may have to pay all or part of the costs resulting
from the insolvency or unavailability of other responsible parties.
In addition, if liability is established, the Group is entitled to
recover its attorneys' fees and costs in pursuing your company. See,'
~.q., Gopher 0il Co. v. Union 0il Co., 955 F.2d 519 (8th Cir. 1992).
The above identification of claims is without prejudice to any
other claims the WDE Group may have against your company. For
example, your company may be liable under other federal and Minnesota
Citf of Columbia Heights
City Offices
Page 5.
April 15, 1994
statutes, and the common law. To the extent that notice is required
under CERCLA, this letter shall serve as formal notice.
IV. Commencement of Litigation.
After the settlement period has expired, the WDE Group will
commence litigation by filing and serving a formal complaint in
federal court. Your company will then have twenty (20) days to serve
an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. Your company will
also be required to respond to a comprehensive set of discovery
requests which will be served along with the complaint. These
discovery requests will require complete and thorough disclosure of
information relating to your business operations, f~nancial condition,
corporate structure, and waste disposal practices.
V. Settlement Offer.
As indicated above, the Group recently obtained heretofore
unavailable documentation which demonstrates that many entities
contributed waste to the WDE Site. Information regarding the volume
and description of the waste generated by your company and others has
been compiled and analyzed. A summary of your company's waste
associated with the WDE Site is attached as Exhibit B to the
Confidential WDE Site Settlement Agreement which accompanies this
letter. We have calculated your company's liability to be $2,500.00.
However, in the interest of promoting early settlement, we have been
authorized to offer you a settlement of $2,000.00. This figure
represents a 20% discount of your company's actual liability and will
remain open until the close of business on Friday, May 13, 1994.
In exchange for your payment, the WDE PRP Group is prepared to
provide your company a number of commitments designed to fully resolve
your company's current liability relating to the Site. These are
spelled out in detail in the settlement agreement which is enclosed
herewith. To summarize, the WDE PRP Group will provide you with the
following:
A. Covenant Not-To-Sue.
A covenant by the WDE PRP Group and its constituent mem~_ers
not to sue your company for the costs fronted by the Group to clean up
the WDE Site and the administrative costs paid by the Group to the
U.S. EPA and the MPCA.
B. Defense, Indemnity and Hold Harmless.
A commitment by the WDE PRP Group to defend and indemnify your
company in the event that the Group sues non-settlers and those
non-settlers attempt to bring your company into the litigation, or if'
the U.S. EPA or MPCA assert claims against your company for their
unreimbursed administrative costs.
C. Petition for Order Barring Claims.
· Citg of Columbia Heights
City Offices
Page 6.
April 15, 1994
A commitment by the WDE PRP Group that if it commences
litigation, it will petition the Court for an order barring any claims
against your company by non-settlers. If this relief is granted, it
will provide an additional layer of protection for your company.
As the above synopsis makes clear, there are significant advantages to
settling with the Group which should be carefully considered in
evaluating your course of action. Please read the enclosed Settlement
Agreement carefully as it spells out the exact terms and conditions of
settlement.
VI. Procedure for Acceptance of Settlement Offer.
In order to settle this case now, you must do the following:
A. Forward your company's settlement check in the amount of
$2,000.00. to the undersigned. Your check should be made payable to
the "WDE Trust."
B. Execute the Signature Page from the enclosed Settlement
Agreement, and forward the Settlement Agreement and the Signature Page
to the undersigned.
Both your check and the Signature Page must be received by this office
no later than the close of business on Friday, May 13, 1994. As soon
as your check clears, we will return to you a Signature Page executed
on behalf of the WDE PRP Group and its constituent members.
Be advised that, as stated above, if payment and an executed
Signature Page for the Settlement Agreement are not received by that
date, the WDE PRP Group will insist on full payment of your company's
liability (i.e., $2,500.00). If the matter goes to litigation, we
will also seek an award of attorneys' fees and other costs permitted
by law. Therefore, we strongly urge that you act promptly in
considering this settlement offer. Please contact us at (612)
343-2866 if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY,
/Nic;holas N. ~ier~arten
Enclosures
cc: WDE PRP Group Steering Committee (w/enc.)
~UMMA~Y OF WASTE DIgPOg~L EN~INEERINQ (WDE)
(April 14, 1994)
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) Costs (Including interest)
$3,128,009
II.
Remedial Design/Remedial Action
(RD/~A) Costs
A®
Construction Costs~
1. Groundwater Pump
2. Groundwater Treatment
3. Groundwater Disposal
4. Multilayer Cap
5. Slurry Wall
6. Monitoring
7. Wetland Backfill
$ 820,365
918,820
1,187,564
6,800,231
239,995
153,300
Subtotal
B. Operation and Maintenance Costs
C. Accumulated Interest
$10,153,875
$6,128,584
$667,698
III. Access Costs
$125,000
IV. Administrative Costs
$2,194,048
Ve
U.S. EPA Costs
A. Past Costs
B. ~utu~e costs
TOTAL
$555,135
$24,210,195
CONFIDENTIALz pREPARED FOR F.R.E. 408 SETTT.~W~NT PURPOSES ONLY
5074G
~,~_~'rD~.b-~TAL WDE STTE SE~w~T-~d~'uT B~EEIdlZHT
This Confidential WDE Site Settlement Agreement
('Agreement') is made by and between Claimants, as hereinafter
defined, and the party identified in the attached Signature Page
('Settler').
RECITALS
NHEREA~, the Claimants have made certain hereinafter
defined claims against Settler for costs incurred or to be
incurred by the Claimants relating to the environmental
investigation and remediation of the Waste Disposal Engineering
Site, located in Andover, Anoka County, Minnesota, ("WDE Site")~
and
WHEREAS, Settler denies that it has any liability to
Claimants~ and
WHEREAS, Claimants and Settler desire to settle, fully
and completely, the claims between them as hereinafter
specified~ and
NHEREA~, to avoid the expense of litigation and to
resolve, to the extent set forth herein, the claims between them
relating to the WDE Site, Claimants and Settler enter into this
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the
mutual covenants hereinafter set forth and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
The recitals set forth above are true and correct and
hereby made a par~ of this Agreement.
2. Certa~nDeflned Terms.
Each capitalized term used herein shall have the
following meanings (and, as the context may require, such
meanings shall be applicable to both the singular and plural
form of the terms defined) z
-~J~' means the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. S 9601, et ~.
#~" means the WDE PRP Group and the WDE PRP Group
Members.
'Claimants' Claim" means, except as e~ressly limited in
paragraph 4(c), any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of
action, or suits in law or in equity, of whatsoever kind or
nature, which could be asserted by Claimants, whether known or
unknown, anticipated or unanticipated, expected or unexpected,
for costs, damages or expenses which have been incurred or may
be incurred in the future toward the investigation and
remediation of the WDE Site, including, but not limited to
claims under CERCLA, HERLA, MERAand the common law.
'Economic Loss ~laim' means any claim, demand, action or
cause of action for economic loss, including but not limited any
inJur~ to, destruction of, or loss of any real or personal
proper~y, relocation costs, any loss of use of real or personal
proper~y, any loss of past or future income or profits resulting
-2-
from injury to, destruction of, or loss of real or personal
property without regard to ownership of the property.
'Ef[ect~ve Date' means the date on which the last party
hereto executes this Agreement.
'~RA' means the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, Minn.
Stat. S 116B.01 et ~,~.
'~' means the Minnesota Environmental Response and
Liability Act, Minn. Stat.
'Natural Resources D~mage Claim' means any claim by an
Person or Entity for injury to, destruction of or loss of
natural resources, including but not limited to claims based on
CERCLA S 9607(a)(4)(C) and HERLA S 115B.04, subd. 1(c), claims
for costs incurred by any natural resource trustee and costs for
assessing any such injury.
'personal InJur~_ Clalm' means any claim, demand, action or
cause of action for death, personal injury or disease, whether
based on negligence, strict liability, abnormally dangerous
activity or other law, for personal injury or bodily injury,
including but not limited to claims for loss of past or future
wages or income, loss of earning capacity, lost opportunity,
medical expenses, rehabilitation costs, burial expenses, loss of
consortium, emotional distress, fear of cancer or other
maladies, increased risk, medical monitoring, pain and
discomfort, or the costs of any health assessment or health
effects study carried out under CERLCA ~ 9604(i) or other law.
-3-
'Person or ~ntitv# means any natural person, firm,
corporation, association, partnership, Joint venture, commercial
entity, the United States Government (including the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency), the State of Minnesota
(including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency),
municipality, commission or political subdivision of the State
of Minnesota.
'Property Damage Claim" means any claim, demand, action or
cause of action for property damage, whether based on
negligence, strict liability, abnormally dangerous activity,
riparian rights, nuisance, trespass, governmental action for
property damage or other law, including but not limited to
claims for dimunition in value, going concern value or lost
opportunity.
'~" means only the person or entity identified in the
attached Signature Page and its officers, directors, and
employees acting in their capacity as such.
'Settler's Claim' means, except as expressly limited in
paragraph 4(c), below, any and all claims, demands, actions,
causes of action, or suits in law or in e~uity, of whatsoever
kind or nature, which could be asserted by Settler relating to
the WDE Site, whether known or unknown, anticipated or
unanticipated, expected or unexpected, for costs, damages or
expenses which have been incurred or maybe incurred in the
future toward the ~nvestigation and remediation of the WDE Site,
including, but not limited to, claims under CERCLA, HERLA, MERA,
and the common law.
-4-
'WDE PRP GrouP" means the unincorporated association formed
by the WDE PRP Group Members for the purpose of remediating the
WDE Site.
"WDE PRP Grou~ Members" means the constituent members of
the WDE PRP Group identified in Exhibit A and their past,
present and future officers, directors, attorneys, principals,
agents, servants, representatives, employees, shareholders,
parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, partners, predecessors,
successors, trustees, insurers, indemnitees and assigns.
"HD~" means the property located in the City of
Andover, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, previously owned
by Wasteco, Inc. and located in Sections 27 and 34, Township 32
North, Range 24 West consisting of approximately 73 acres which
was used as a landfill during the period from around 1963
through 1984.
3. Settlement Pa_vment.
(a) amQunt and T~m~na.
Settler shall pay to the WDE PRP Group the sum
identified in the attached Signature Page ("Settlement Amount")
simultaneous with the Settler's return of the Signature Page to
the WDE PRP Group.
(b) ?mss Than Full Com_oensation.
The settlement payment b~ Settler set forth in
paragraph 3(a), above, is not intended as full compensation for
Claimants' Claim or other damages which it has sustained
relating to the WDE Site. Claimants expressly reserves the
-5-
right to seek full compensation for their claimed damages
against any other Person or Entity not a party to this Agreement.
4. Mutual Covenants Not-To-Sue.
(a) Covenant Not-To-Sue B~Cla~mants.
Claimants hereby covenant not to sue Settler for
Claimants' Claim as defined above~ provided, however, that
Claimants reserve the right to enforce the terms of this
Agreement through any and all available means, including,
without limitation, institution of legal proceedings.
(b) Covenant Not-To-Sue B~ Settler.
Settler hereby covenants not to sue Claimants for
Settler's Claim as defined above~ provided, however, that
Settler expressly reserves the right to enforce the terms of
this Agreement through any and all available means, including,
without limitation, institution of legal proceedings.
(c) preservation of Claims/Reservation o~ Riahts.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the
Mutual Covenants Not-To-Sue set forth above and the indemnity
obligation set forth in paragraph 5 below do not pertain to
matters other than those expressly specified therein. The
parties reserve and this Agreement is without prejudice to all
rights the parties may have against each other, or any other
Person or Entity with respect to all other matters. Without in
any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Mutual
Covenants Not-To-Sue set forth above do not apply to the
following~
-6-
(i) Personal Injury Claims~
(ii) Property Damage Claims~
(iii) Natural Resource Damage Claims~ or
(iv) Economic Loss Claims.
5. De~en~e and Indemnif~cation o~ Rettler.
Upon receipt by the WDE PRP Group of the Settlement
Amount referenced above, the WDE PRP Group agrees to indemnify,
defend and hold harmless the Settler for all matters within the
scope of the Covenant Not-To-Sue by Claimants, subject to the
following terms=
(a) Within thirty (30) days of receipt of written
notice of any claim for which Settler may seek indemnification
under this paragraph, Settler must provide written notice of
that claim to Common Counsel identified in the Signature Page,
attaching a true copy of any written notice of claim received by
Settler~
(b) Settler must at its expense cooperate with
Claimants and its designated counsel in the evaluation of and
response to the claim, including without limitation (l)
providing Claimants with information and copies of any
documentation relating to the claim or the circumstances
surrounding the claim~ (ii) providing information, documentation
and copies of materials relating to the generation and disposal
of waste during the period 1963 to 1985~ (iii) assisting in the
preparation of answers to interrogatories~ and (iv) making past
and present employees available for interview and deposition~
-7-
(c) No defense or indemnification obligation exists
or may be enforced hereunder if Settler settles the claim
without the specific, prior written approval of Claimants; and
(d) Claimants may, in their sole discretion, retain
counsel to defend Settler.
Rxclusions/Reo_oeners.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement,
the Covenant Not-To-Sue by Claimants in paragraph 4(a) and the
Defense and Indemnification in paragraph 5, above, do not apply
to Settler ifs
(a) Information is discovered which indicates that
Settler contributed waste to the WDE Site in an amount or
composition materially greater or different than that described
on Exhibit B;
(b) Settler fails or refuses to make the payment
required under paragraph 3(a) above, or otherwise breaches this
Agreement;
(c) Settler unreasonably fails or refuses to fully
cooperate with Claimants in their efforts to pursue or defend
any litigation relating to Claimants' Claim or Settler's Claim~
(d) The U.S. EPA or HPCAdirect or require remedial
design or remedial activities for the WDE Site materially
greater than or differentfrom U.S. EPA's Administrative Order
relating to the WDE Site effective August 23, 1991.
7. Assionment of Settler's Claim.
Settler hereby assigns to Claimants, Settler's Claim,
-8-
as defined above. The assignment of claims to Claimants
contemplated by this paragraph specifically includes, but is not
limited to, claims which could be asserted by Settler against
Claimants.
8. Petition For Court Order Barring Cla4mR Against
In the event that litigation is commenced relating to
Claimants' Claim, then Claimants shall petition the Court for an
order barring any claims for contribution, indemnification or
other claims relating to Claimants' Claim against Settler.
Settler shall Join in any such motion and certify to the Court
that this Agreement was negotiated at arms-length and is a fair,
Just and reasonable settlement. The parties expressly
acknowledge that the Court may or may not grant the requested
relief or grant less than full relief. If the Cour~ does not
grant the requested relief or grants less than full relief, this
Agreement shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect,
and be binding and final as to the parties to the Agreement.
10. ~egresentations ~d Warranties by Settler.
Settler has reviewed Exhibit B and represents and
warrants that to the best of its knowledge, information and
belief it is not aware of any wastes, other than those in
Exhibit B, that went to the WDE Site. A breach of the
representations and warranties in this paragraph is governed by
paragraph 6(a) above.
11. No &~m{Ssion Of Fact or Liability.
It is hereby specifically understood that by entering
-9-
into this Agreement, Claimants and Settler do not admit any
liability of any sort and intend hereby merely to buy their
peace. It ks further specificallyunderstood and agreed that
this Agreement shall not be construed as an admission of fact or
liability by the parties hereto, liability at all times having.
been denied, and that this Agreement is entered into for the
sole purpose of settling the dispute which exists between the
parties hereto and may not be introduced as evidence or
otherwise used for any purpose in litigation or administrative
proceedings, except in litigation or proceedings brought to
enforce the terms hereto. It is further understood and agreed
that the parties hereto specifically reserve the right to
advance every available claim or defense in the event that
future disputes arise between them on any matter other than
those addressed in this Agreement including, but not limited to,
claims preserved in paragraph 4(c), above.
12. Confidentiality.
Claimants and Settler agree that they will keep
strictly confidential the terms herein including, but not
limited to, the Settlement Amount paid in consideration for this
Agreement and all correspondence between the parties relating to
settlement, and will not disclose said terms to anyperson for
any purpose, except solely as maybe necessar~to comply with
auditing disclosure requirements, applicable tax or other laws,
requests of or cooperation with insurers, and/or court or
administrative orders.
-10-
13. Govern~n~ T.nW and Construction.
The validity, construction and enforceability of this
Agreement shall be governed by the internal laws of the State of
Minnesota, without giving effect to conflict of laws principles
thereof. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement
shall be interpreted in such manner as to be effective and valid
under such applicable law, but, if any provision of this
Agreement shall be held to be prohibited or invalid under such
applicable law, such provision shall be ineffective only to the
extent of such prohibition or invalidity, without invalidating
the remainder of such provision or the remaining provisions of
this Agreement.
14. Reliance on OwnAttorne~.
In entering into this Agreement, Claimants and Settler
represent that they have had full opportunity to retain the
attorneys of their choice, and that they have read the terms of
this Agreement and that those terms are fully understood and
voluntarily accepted by them.
The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of
Claimants and Settler represent and warrant that they have the
necessary authority to do so and to bind Claimant and Settler,
respectively, to the terms hereof.
16. ~nature and Effectiveness o~ Agreement.
This Agreement is not effective unless the Signature
Page attached hereto is signed by both par~ies and all other
-11-
conditions precedent contained in this Agreement are satisfied.
The Signature Page attached hereto is an integral part of this
Agreement.
17. Modifications.
No provision of this Agreement shall be modified or
limited except by a written agreement expressly referring hereto
and to the provisions so modified or limited and signed by
Claimant and Settler.
The headings contained in this Agreement are for
reference purposes only and shall not in any way affect the
meaning or interpretation hereof.
19. Entire Agreement.
This Agreement embodies the entire agreement and
understanding between the parties hereto with respect to the
subject matter hereof. This Agreement supersedes all prior
agreements and understandings relating to the subject matter
hereof. Nothing contained in this Agreement, expressed or
implied, is intended to confer upon any persons other than the
parties hereto any rights, remedies, obligations or liabilities
hereunder or thereunder.
6812V
-12-
WDE SITE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SIGNATURE PAGE
Name of Settling Party:
City Offices
City of Columbia Heights
Settlement Amount: $2,000.00
The parties hereby agree to the terms and conditions contained in
the Confidential WDE Site Settlement Agreement and to abide by the
obligations and provisions set forth therein. The undersigned Settler
hereby represents and warrants that he/she has been duly authorized to
enter into this Agreement on behalf of the company, entity or person
on whose behalf it is indicated that he/she is signing.
ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANTS (WDE PRP GROUP AND WDE PRP GROUP
MEMBERS):
By:
Margaret A. Coughlin, Its Common Counsel
Dickinson, Wright, Moon, Van Dusen & Freeman
One Detroit Center
500 Woodware Avenue, Suite 4000
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Phone: (313) 223-3758
ON BEHALF OF SETTLER:
Name of Company Completing This Form if
Different From Above
Typed Name of Authorized Company Representative
Signature of Authorized Company Representative
Title:
Contact Person or Representative for Future
Correspondence, With Address
Telephone Number Fax Number
CONFIDENTIAL WDE SITE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
WDE PRP Group Members~
American Can Company*
BrantJen & Kluge, Inc.*
Ceridian (formerly known as Control Data Corporation)
Consolidated Container Corp. (including Dworsky Barrel Company)*
Ecolab Inc. (formerlyknownas Economics Laboratory Inc.)
Federal-Hoffman, Inc. (formerly known as Federal Cartridge Co.)
FMC Corporation (including United Defense, Limited Partnership)
Foley-Belsaw Company (formerly known as Foley Manufacturing Co.)
Ford Motor Company
G & K Services (formerly known as Gross Industrial Towel &
Garment)
The Gillette Company*
The Glidden Company (also known as Glidden-Durkee)*
H. B. Fuller Company*
Honeywell, Inc. (including Alliant Techsystems, Inc.)
IMI Cornelius Inc. (also known as The Cornelius Company)
Land O' Lakes (successor in interest to Midland Cooperatives)
Minco Products, Inc.
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M)
Mogul Corporation
Northwest Airlines, Inc.
*This Group Member has elected not to pursue its claims against
Settler. This Group Member has assigned its claim to the WDE
PRP Group, as they were contractually obligated to do, and
consequently will not share in any recovered proceeds. The
claims assigned by this Group Member will be fully and finally
resolved as a result of this settlement.
Onan Corp.
Soo Line Railroad Company
Thermo King Corp.
Whirlpool Corporation*
Whittaker Corporation
Union Brass & Metal Mfg. Company*
UniSource Worldwide, Inc. (formerly knownas Paper Corporation
of America), a subsidiar~ of Alco Standard (indemnitor of Brown
& Bigelow, Inc.)
Unisys Corporation (formerly known as Sperry, Univac or
Remington Rand)
5052G
-2-
CIT~ OF COLUMBIA H~OHTS
TO:
FROM:
pATE:
RE:
PAT HENTGES, CITY MANAGER
CAROLE BLOWERS, RECORDING SECRETARY TO THE CHARTER COMMIS-
SION
MAY 4, 1994
ORDINANCE NO. 1284, AMENDING CHAPTER 7, SECTION 72 OF THE
CHARTER OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PERTAINING TO THE
BONDED DEBT AND DEBT LIMIT
Please be advised that the Charter Commission on its April 21, 1994, meeting passed the above
mentioned ordinance.
cb
Attachment
OI~DI~CE NO. 2284
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7, SECTION 72
OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
PERTAINING TO THE BONDED DEBT AND DEBT LIMIT
The City of Columbia Heights does ordain:
Section 1: Chapter 7, Section 72, of the Charter of the City of
Columbia Heights which currently reads as follows, to wit:
Section 72. BONDED DEBT AND DEBT LIMIT. Bonds may be issued by
four-fifths vote of the council without the previous approval of
the voters of the said city, but subject to the referendum powers
of the people, for the purchase of real estate~ for new
construction; for new equipment~ for all improvements of a lasting
character; for the purchase or construction of public waterworks or
for the enlargement of the same and for the protection and
distribution of the water supply; for the establishment of public
lighting, heating, or power plants, and for their acquisition and
equipment by purchase or otherwise; for the acquisition or
construction of street railways, telegraph or telephone lines, or
any other public convenience from which a revenue is or may be
derived; for the creation or maintenance of a permanent improvement
fund; for the purchase or erection of needful public buildings; for
establishing and maintaining garbage crematories, or other means of
garbage disposal; for the establishment and maintenance of a
hospitals, schools, libraries, museums, art galleries and
cemeteries; for the construction of sewers, subways, streets,
sidewalks, pavements, culverts, and parks and parkways and play
grounds; for changing, controlling or bridging streams and other
waterways within the corporate limits and constructing and
repairing roads and bridges within two miles of the corporate
limits thereof; for the purpose of refunding outstanding bonds; for
the purpose of funding floating indebtedness; and for all purposes
which may be authorized bythe laws of the State of Minnesota; the
right of the city to issue bonds under the authority of any law
heretofore and this section of the city's charter shall not be
construed to limit the passed and adopted by the State of
Minnesota, but no bonds shall ever be issued to pay current
expenses or to refund emergency debt certificates. The total
bonded indebtedness of the city shall never exceed ten percent of
the last assessed valuation of the taxable property therein,
including monies and credits, but in computing the total bonded
indebtedness, emergency debt certificates and certificates of
indebtedness shall not be included in or counted as part of such
bonded indebtedness, if [1] held in a sinking fund maintained by
the city, [2] issued for the acquisition of equipment; purchase,
construction, maintenance, extension, enlargements or improvement
of street railways, telegraph or telephone lines, water, lighting,
heating and power plants, or either of them, or any other public
convenience, from which revenue is or may be derived, owned and.
operated by the city, or the acquisition of property needed in
connection therewith; or for the construction of sewers, public
~rainage ditches, or the acquisition~of lands, or for improvements
of streets, parks, or other public i~o~ements, to the extent that
they are payable from the prOceedS?~o~ assessments leV~ed upon
property specially benefittedby such ditches or improvements, or
[3] for the purpose of anticipating the collection of general taxes
for the year in which issued. In no case shall bonds be issued to
run for more than thirty years. The purpose for which bonds are
issued shall be set forth in the ordinance authorizing them and the
proceeds from such bonds shall not be diverted to any other
purpose.
Before any bonds are sold, at least one week's published
notice shall be given of a meeting of the city council to open and
consider bids therefore. The time and place of said meeting shall
be fixed and the newspaper in which the notice shall be published
shall be designatedbya resolution duly passed, which may provide
for additional notice. At the time and place so fixed, the bids
shall be opened and the offer complying with the terms of such sale
and deemed most favOrable shall be accepted; PROVIDED, that the
council may reject any and all such offers and award said bonds to
a more favorable bidder or upon like notice, it may invite other
bids. Bids may be asked on the basis of a rate of interest
specified in the proposals and on the net interest basis on which
the bidder will pay par for the same.
is herewith amended to read,
Section 72. BONDED DEBT AND DEBT LIMIT. Bonds may be issued by
four-fifths vote of the council without the previous approval of
the voters of the said city, but subject to the referendum powers
of the people, for the purchase of real estate; for new
construction; for new equipment; for all improvements of a lasting
character; for the purchase or construction of public waterWorks or
for the enlargement of the same and for the protection and
distribution of the water supply; for the establishment of public
lighting, heating, or power plants, and for their acquisition and
equipment by purchase ~r otherWise; for the acquisition or
construction of street r~ilways, telegraph or telephone lines, or
any other public convenience from which a revenue is. or may be
derived; fo~ the creationorma~ntenance of a permanent improvement
fund; for the purchase orerection of needful public buildings; for
establishing and maintaining garbage crematories, or other means of
garbage disposal; for ~he establishment and maintenance of a
hospita%s, schools, libraries, mUseums, art galleries and
cemeteries; for the construction of sewers, subways, streets,
sidewalks, pavements, culverts, and Parks and parkways and play
grounds; for changing, Contro11ing or bridging ~tream~ and other
waterWays within the icorporate limits' and constructing and
repairing roads and bridges within two miles of the corporate
limits thereof; for the gurposeo~refunding outstanding bonds; for
the purpose of funding fZoating ~ndebtedness; and for all purposes
which may be au~horized bY the laws of the State of Minnesota; the
right of the c~ty to isls~e bonds unde~ the authority of any law
heretofore and this section of the c~ty's charter shall not be
construed to limit the passed and adopted by the State of
Minnesota, but no bonds shall ever be issued to pay current
expenses or to refund emergency debt certificates. The total
bonded indebtedness of the city shall never exceed ten percent of
the last assessed valuation of the taxable property therein,
including monies and credits, bUt in com~uting the total bonded
indebtedness, emergency debt certificates and certificates of
indebtedness shall not be included in or counted as part of such
bonded indebtedness, if [1] held in a sinking fund maintained by
the city, [2] issued for the acquisition of equipment; purchase,
construction, maintenance, extension, enlargements or improvement
of street railways, telegraph or telephone lines, water, lighting,
heating and power plants, or either of them, or any other public
convenience, from which revenue is or may be derived, owned and
operated by the city, or the acquisition of property needed in
connection therewith; or for the construction of sewers, public
drainage ditches, or the acquisition of lands, or for improvements
of streets, parks, or other public improvements, to the extent that
they are payable from the proceeds of assessments levied upon
property specially benefitted by such ditches or improvements, or
[3] for the purpose of anticipating the collection of general taxes
for the year in which issued. In no case shall bonds be issued to
run for more than thirty years. The purpose for which bonds are
issued shall be set forth in the~Tj~~_~authorizing them and the
proceeds from such bonds shall not be diverted to any other
purpose.
~=-..._ _____.==~-- ~'ill ~ay ~:r ....... =:.~:. . Before any bon~s are Bold.
ghere shall b~ a fggr-~&fths vo=e of the council authorizin~ the
i~suanc~ of gh~ bon~s by ordinance. Followin~ igB nassa~e, ghe
ordinance shall be published at least once by D~licagion in a
leqal newscast havfn~ oeneral circulation in the city. The
re~isgered vog~rS 0f the city shall have ghirgv days from ~he dage
auth~riz~n~ the t~suanc~, g~e~ent to the Das~a~ 0f th~ ~
aughoriztn~ ordinance, its publication, an~ the thirgv-dav period.
ghe bond sale shall oc~r w~thin s~xgv days. ~rin~ said sixgv day
period. =he City Manager shall have the authority go estgblish s
special meegin~ Upon ag leas~ seventv,.gwo (72) hours advance nogic~
go each me~er of ghe council. Ag ghag special meeting, the City
Manager is authorized to receiv~ ~he actual bid(s) or ~al~ of ~h~
bonds to be negotiated. The acgual award or sale of gh~ bonds
shall be approved by a resolution Das~e~ by a four-fifths vote
the council.
Section 2= Chapter 7, Section ?2b, of the Charter of the City
of Columbia Heights which currently reads as
follows, to wit=
Section 72b. BONDED DEBT ANDDEBT LIMIT. No bond shall ever
be issued to pay current expenses or to refund certificates of
indebtedness issued to provide for temporary deficiencies in the
revenues to cover current expenses, but bonds may be issued by a
four-fifths vote of the council, subject to the referendum powers
of the people, for the purchase of real estate, for new equipment,
and'for all improvements of a lasting character. The total bonded
debt of the city shall never exceed ten percent of the assessed
valuation of all the taxable property in the city, but in computing
the total bonded debt, emergency debt certificates, and bonds
issued prior to the adoption of the charter and either held in a
sinking fund or issued for the purchase, construction, maintenance,
extension, enlargement, or improvement or water, heating plants or
either, or any other public convenience from which a revenue is or
may be derived, owned and operated by such city or village, or the
acquisition of property needed in connection therewith, or for the
improvement of streets, parks or other public improvements, to the
extent that they are payable from the proceeds of assessments
levied upon property especially benefitted thereby, and obligations
issued for the improvements which are payable, wholly or partly,
from the collections of special assessments levied on property
benefitted thereby, or for the creation or maintenance of a
permanent improvement revolving fund shall not count as part of
such total bonded debt. In no case will bonds be issued to run for
more than thirty years. The purpose for which bonds are issued
shall be set forth in the ordinance authorizing them and the
proceeds from such bonds shall not be diverted to any other
purposes.
is herewith amended to read,
Section 72b. BONDED DEBT ANDDEBT LIMIT. No bond shall ever
be issued to pay current expenses or to refund certificates of
indebtedness issued to provide for temporary deficiencies in the
revenues to cover current expenses, but bonds may be issued by a
four-fifths vote of the council, subject to the referendum powers
of the people, for the purchase of real estate, for new equipment,
and for all improvements of a lasting character. The total bonded
debt of the city shall never exceed ten percent of the assessed
valuation of all the taxable property in the city, but in computing
the total bonded debt, emergency debt certificates, and bonds
issued prior to the adoption of the charter and either held in a
sinking fund or issued for the purchase, construction, maintenance,
extension, enlargement, or improvement or water, heating plants or
either, or any other public convenience from which a revenue is or
may be derived, owned and operated by such city or village, or the
acquisition of property needed in connection therewith, or for the
improvement of streets, parks or other public improvements, to the
extent that they are payable from the proceeds of assessments
levied upon property especially benefitted thereby, and obligations
issued for the improvements which are payable, wholly or partly,
from the collections of special assessments levied on property
benefitted thereby, or for the creation or maintenance of a
pez~anent improvement revolving fund shall not count as part of
such total bonded debt. In no case will bonds be issued to run for
more than thirty years. The purpose for which bonds are issued
shall be set forth in the ~ authorizing them and the
proceeds from such bonds shall not be diverted to any other
purposes.
Section 3:
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after ninety (90) days after its passage.
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Date of Passage:
Offered By:
Seconded By:
Roll Call:
Joseph Sturdevant, Sr., Mayor
Jo-Anne Student, Council Secretary