The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDecember 27, 2000 RegularCITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 706-3600; TDD (763) 706-3692 ADMINISTRATION December 21, 2000 Mayor Gary L. Peterson Councilmembers Marlaine Szurek Julienne Wyckoff Don Jolly John Hunter City Manager Waiter R. Fehst The following is the agenda for the regular meeting of the City Council to be held at 7:00 PM on Wednesday, December 27, 2000 in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, Minnesota. The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, programs, and activities. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons ate available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the Deputy City Clerk at 763-706-3611, to make arrangements. (TDD/706-3692 for deaf or heating impaired only) CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO MEETING AGENDA (The Council, upon majority vote of its members, may make additions and deletions to the agenda. These may be items brought to the attention of the Council under the Citizen Forum or items submitted after the agenda preparation deadline.) CONSENT AGENDA (These items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted as part of the Consent Agenda by one motion. Items removed from consent agenda approval will be taken up as the next order of business.) A) MOTION: Move to approve the Consent Agenda items as follows: 1) Minutes for Approval MOTION: Move to approve the minutes of the December 11, 2000, regular City Council meeting as presented. 2) Establish Work Session Meeting Date for January, 2001 MOTION: Move to establish a Work Session meeting date of Wednesday, January 17, 2001 beginning at 7:00 p.m., and to cancel the Work Session meeting date of Tuesday, January 2, 2001. 3) Establish John P. Murzyn Hall rental rates for 2002, and revise the Hall Management Plan discount policy MOTION: Move to adopt the 2002 Murzyn Hall rental rates and revisions to the JPM Management Plan regarding the discount policy as outlined by the Park and Recreation Commission at their meeting of December 13, 2000. THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER City Council Agenda December 27, 2000 Page 2 of 4 4) Adopt Resolution No. 2000-100, being: a resolution establishing: senior citizens or retired and disabled persons hardship special assessment deferral MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-100, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2000-100 establishing a new maximum income of $17,900 for senior or retired and disabled persons to be eligible for special assessment deferral. 5) Authorize Replacement of 1985 Water Flush Truck MOTION: Move to authorize the purchase of one (1) new Cab-over Cargo Chassis from Boyer Trucks for a Sterling SC700 Cab over chassis in the amount of $49,715, plus tax and license. The cost would be appropriated from Capital Equipment Replacement Fund No. 431-43121-5150. 6) Approve amendment No. 2 for Central Avenue Street, Utility and Streetscaping Design MOTION: Move to authorize Amendment No. 2 in the amount of $83,100 to BRW for Central Avenue Streetscaping from 37th tO 45th Avenues as detailed in the attached proposal letter dated December 12, 2000 for a revised professional services agreement of $247,100; and, authorize the Mayor and City Manager to amend the agreement for the same. 7) Renewal of Professional Services for Continuation of Safety Manag:ement Program Support services for the Public Works Dept. MOTION: Move to accept the proposal dated December 4, 2000 from Integrated Loss Control, Inc., for Safety Management Program Support services for the Public Works Department in an amount not-to-exceed $7,224; and, furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same. 8) Authorize Long-Term Disability Insurance Provider MOTION: Move to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the necessary documents with Jefferson Pilot Insurance for provision of long-term disability insurance effective February 1, 2001. 9) Adopt Resolution No. 2000-99, being a resolution regarding: labor agreement between the City of Columbia Heights and Teamsters, Local 320, Police Serg:eants MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-99, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2000-99, regarding the Labor Agreement between the City of Columbia Heights and the Teamsters, Local 320, Police Sergeants, effective January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2003. 10) Continue agreement with Honeywell for off-site energy management services and equipment maintenance services MOTION: Move to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a one-year agreement with Honeywell for the provision of off-site energy management services and equipment maintenance services at a cost of $69,924. 11 ) Adopt Resolution No. 2000-92, being a resolution approving the appointment of Commissioners to the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-92, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2000-92, being a Resolution Approving the Appointment of Commissioners to the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority. City Council Agenda December 27, 2000 Page 3 of 4 12) Establish Heating Date regarding License Revocation or Suspension of Rental Properties at 1224- 1226 Circle Terrace MOTION: Move to establish a hearing date of January 8, 2001 for Revocation or Suspension of a License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against Salman Ali, 1224- 1226 Circle Terrace. 13) Approve Software Support Agreement with ACS, Inc. MOTION: Move to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a three-year software support agreement with ACS, Inc., formerly Business Records Corporation, for maintenance of financial soft-ware packages at a cost not to exceed $26,937.70 billed annually at $8,801.96 for 2001, $8978.22 for 2002, and $9,157.52 for 2003. 14) Approve Final Payment of Parkview Villa Elevator Modernization Project MOTION: Move to accept the work for the elevator modernization project at Parkview Villa Noah and to authorize final payment of up to $35,465.11 to Millar Elevator Service Company of St. Paul, Minnesota subject to receipt of final application and certification for payment and lien waiver documents. 15) Approve License Applications MOTION: Move to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for December 27, 2000 and to deny the application by Jerome Emond for a license to drive a taxicab within the City due to concerns with his conduct and driving record as expressed by the Police Department. 16) Approve Payment of Bills MOTION: Move to pay the bills as listed out of the proper fund. PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND GUESTS A) Proclamations B) Presentations 1) Decision Resources - Community Survey Results C) Introduction of New Employees D) Recognition PUBLIC HEARINGS A) Close the Public Hearing for Revocation/Suspension of Rental Housing License at 4421 5th Street NE MOTION: Move to close the Public Hearing regarding the Revocation or Suspension of the Rental License held by Steve Anderson, regarding rental property at 4421 5th Street NE, in that the property is not considered rental property as defined by the Residential Maintenance Code. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION A) Other Ordinances and Resolutions B) Bid Considerations C) Other Business 1 ) Approve Amendment to Easement Agreements with NEI College of Technology MOTION: Move to approve the Amendment of Easement Agreement for Document No. 328271 and Amendment for Easement for Document No. 596930 as presented in writing; and furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same. City Council Agenda December 27, 2000 Page 4 of 4 2) Approve Amendment to Contract for Private Development - Metro Assemblies MOTION: Move to approve the proposed First Amendment to the Contract for Private Development between the HRA, City of Columbia Heights, and Robert C. Bamick and Priscilla A. Barnick, dba Metro Assemblies; and furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transactions and are approved by the officials authorized to execute these documents, provided that execution of the documents by such officials is conclusive evidence of their approval. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A) Report of the City Manager B) Report of the City Attorney GENERAL COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS A) Minutes of Boards and Commissions 1) Meeting of the December 5, 2000, Public Library Board of Trustees 2) Special Meeting of the December 7, 2000, Public Library Board of Trnstees 3) Meeting of the December 13, 2000, Park and Recreation Commission 4) Meeting of the November 14, 2000, Economic Development Authority 10. CITIZENS FORUM OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2000 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at 7:05 p.m. on Monday, December 11, 2000 in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights. Present: Councilmembers Szurek, Jolly, Wyckoff, Hunter, and Mayor Peterson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO MEETING AGENDA None CONSENT AGENDA These items were enacted by one motion. MOTION by Szurek, second by Wyckoff, to approve Consent Agenda items as follows: 1) Minutes for Approval a. MOTION to approve the minutes of the November 27, 2000, Regular Council Meeting as presented. b. MOTION to approve the minutes of the December 4, 2000 Truth in Taxation Meeting as presented. 2) Establish Work Session Meeting Dates for January, 2001 MOTION to establish a Work Session meeting date of Tuesday, January 2, 2001 beginning at 7:00 p.m. Walt Fehst, City Manager, explained there would be a second Work Session meeting date set, but as the third Monday in January is the Martin Luther King holiday, this needs to be discussed. 3) Authorize Payment of North Metro Mayors Association Membership Fee for 2001 MOTION to authorize payment of the 2001 Annual Membership Fee to the Noah Metro Mayors Association in the amount of $8,762.00. 4) Authorize Transfer of Funds from General Fund to Forfeiture Fund MOTION to approve the transfer of $2,900 from the General Fund to the Police Department Forfeiture Fund; these funds to be used for DWI enforcement and/or training. December 11, 2000 Page 2 of 26 5) Authorize Purchase of One Unmarked Downsized Vehicle for the Police Department MOTION to authorize the purchase of one 2001 Ford Taurus unmarked mid-size vehicle from the State of Minnesota bid in the amount of $15,769.46 including tax, with funding to come from 431-42100-5150; and that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to enter into a contract for same. 6) Adopt Resolution No. 2000-80, being a resolution Establishing Senior Citizen Eligibility Standards for Refuse, Sewage Disposal and Water Supply Utility Rates MOTION to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-80, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION Move to adopt Resolution No. 2000-80, being a resolution Establishing Senior Citizen Eligibility Standards for Refuse, Sewage Disposal and Water Supply Utility Rates. Fehst stated this wouM increase the maximum income limit for seniors from $17, 700 to $17,900 to be eligible for reduced senior citizen rates. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-80 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SENIOR CITIZEN ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS FOR REFUSE, SEWAGE DISPOSAL AND WATER SUPPLY UTILITY RATES WHEREAS, the City Council has previously established eligibility standards for senior citizens for Refuse Service, Disposal, and Water Supply; and WHEREAS, It has been the City's practice to maintain uniform eligibility standards whenever possible: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Columbia Heights as follows: That anyone over 62 years of age with a maximum household income of $17,900 will be eligible for reduced rates. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above eligibility standard be effective January 1, 2001. Passed this 11th day of December, 2000 Offered by: Szurek Seconded by: Wyckoff Roll Call: All ayes Gary L. Peterson, Mayor Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk December 11, 2000 Page 3 of 26 7) Adopt Resolution No. 2000-79, being a resolution Designating Depositories for City funds of the City of Columbia Heights MOTION to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-79, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION to adopt Resolution No. 2000-79, being a resolution designating depositories for City funds of the City of Columbia Heights. Fehst indicated the depositories would be Northeast State Bank and Wells Fargo Bank of Minnesota. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-79 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES AND SAFE DEPOSIT ACCESS FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that Northeast State Bank and Wells Fargo Bank of Minnesota, N.A. are hereby designated as depositories of the ~mds of this corporation. IT IS FLIRTHER RESOLVED, that checks, drafts, or other withdrawal orders issued against the fimds of this corporation on deposit with said banks shall be signed by the following: Mayor City Manager Clerk-Treasurer and that said banks are hereby fully authorized to pay and charge to the accotmt of this corporation any checks, drafts, or other withdrawal orders. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Northeast State Bank and Wells Fargo Bank of Minnesota, N.A. as designated depositories of the corporation be and it is hereby requested, authorized and directed to honor checks, drafts or other orders for the payment of money drawn in this corporation's name, including those drawn to the individual order of any person or persons whose name or names appear thereon as signer or signers thereof, when bearing or purporting to bear the facsimile signatures of the following: Mayor City Manager Clerk-Treasurer and that Northeast State Bank and Wells Fargo Bank of Mirmesota, N.A. shall be entitled to honor and to charge this corporation for all such checks, drafts or other orders, regardless of by whom or by what means the facsimile signature or signatures thereon may have been affixed thereto, if such facsimile signature or signatures resemble the facsimile specimens duly certified to or filed with the Banks by the City Clerk or other officer of his corporation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any and all resolutions heretofore adopted by the City Council of the corporation and certified to as governing the operation of this corporation's account(s) with it, be and are hereby continued in full force and effect, except as the same may be supplemented or modified by the foregoing part of this resolution. December 11, 2000 Page 4 of 26 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all transactions, if any relating to deposits, withdrawals, re- discounts and borrowings by or on behalf of this corporation with said banks prior to the adoption of this resolution be, and the same hereby are, in all things ratified, approved and confirmed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any bank or savings and loan located in the State of Minnesota may be used as depositories for investments purposes so long as the investments comply with authorized investments as set forth in Minnesota Statutes. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any brokerage fn'rn located in the State of Minnesota may be used as a depository for investment purposes so long as the investments comply with the authorized investments as set forth in Minnesota Statutes. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the signatures of any one of the following named City employees are required for access to safe deposit boxes: Finance Director City Manager Assistant Finance Director Accounting Coordinator Passed this 1 lth day of December, 2000 Offered by: Szurek Seconded by: Wyckoff Roll Call: All ayes Gary L. Peterson, Mayor Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk 8) Approve Designation of an Official City Newspaper for 2001 MOTION to designate Focus News as the official City newspaper for 2001 and to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement with Focus News for required publications. Fehst indicated the Focus News has been our official newspaper for years. 9) Authorize an Agreement with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for Worker's Compensation coverage MOTION to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement with League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for worker's compensation coverage based on their premium quotation of $120,930. lo) Adopt Resolution No. 2000-95, being a resolution adopting a budget for the year 2001 and setting the total city levy collectable for the year 2001 and approving the HRA Levy of $94,752. MOTION to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-95, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION to adopt Resolution 2000-95, being a resolution adopting a budget for the year 2001 and setting the total city levy collectable for the December 11, 2000 Page 5 of 26 year 2001 in the amount of $3,625,552 and approving the HRA levy of -$94,752. Fehst stated this would adopt the City budget for 2001 and HRA levy for 2001. RESOLUTION 2000-95 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 2001, AND SETTING THE TOTAL CITY LEVY COLLECTABLE FOR THE YEAR 2001 AND APPROVE THE HRA LEVY OF NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA: that the following is hereby adopted by the City of Columbia Heights. Section A. The budget for the City of Columbia Heights for the year 2001 is hereby appreved and adopted with appropriations for each of the funds listed below. General Fund Community Development Fund Economic Development Fund Anoka County CDBG Parkview Villa North Parkview Villa South Rental Housing HRA Administration State Aid Cable Television Library DARE Project Capital Improvement Capital Equipment Replacement Funds Central Garage Fund Liquor Water Utility Fund Sewer Utility Fund Refuse Fund Storm Sewer Fund Data Processing Water Fund Debt Service Sewer Fund Debt Service Storm Sewer Fund Debt Service Debt Service Fund Total Expense Including Interfund Transfers Expense 8,022,331 307,762 119,045 249,011 349,552 161,445 16,250 106,752 89,048 192,399 597,234 8,825 1,958,305 215,594 507,070 1,286,219 1,433,109 1,247,535 1,491,610 323, 185 274,732 96,910 3,677 84,914 2,129,220 21,271,734 Section B. The estimated gross revenue to fund the budget of the City of Columbia Heights for all funds, including general ad valorem tax levies and use of fund balances, as hereinafter set forth for the year 2001: General Fund Community Development Fund Economic Development Fund Anoka County CDBG Parkview Villa North Parkview Villa South Revenue 8,022,331 307,762 119,045 249,011 349,552 161,445 December 11, 2000 Page 6 of 26 Rental Housing HRA Administration State Aid Cable Television Library DARE Project Capital Improvement 16,250 106,752 89,048 192,399 597,234 8,825 1,958,305 Capital Equipment Replacement Funds Central Garage Fund Liquor Water Utility Fund Sewer Utility Fund Refuse Fund Storm Sewer Fund Water Fund Debt Service Sewer Fund Debt Service Storm Sewer Fund Debt Service Data Processing Debt Service Fund Total Revenue Including Interfund Transfers 215,594 507,070 1,286,219 1,433,109 1,247,535 1,491,610 323,185 274,732 96,910 3,677 84,914 2,129,220 21,271,734 Section C. The following sums of money are levied for the current year, collectable in 2001, upon the property in said City of Columbia Heights, for the following purposes: Estimated Area-Wide Estimated General and Library Fund Levy Estimated EDA Fund Levy Total Proposed Levy 930,000 2,576,257 119,295 3,625,552 taxable Section D. The City Council of the City of Columbia Heights hereby approves the Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Levy for the fiscal year 2001 in the amount of $94,752. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA: That the budget hearing was held on December 4th at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. The City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Anoka County, Minnesota. Approved this 1 lth day of December 2000 Offered By: Szurek Seconded By: Wyckoff Roll Call: All ayes Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk Approve Resolution No. 2000-91, being a resolution approving Appointment of Commissioners to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for Columbia Heights MOTION to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-91, there being ample copies available to the public. December 11, 2000 Page 7 of 26 MOTION to approve Resolution No. 2000-91, being a resolution approving Appointment of Commissioners to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for Columbia Heights. Fehst stated the appointees would be the two new Councilmembers Robert l/Villiams and Bruce Nawrocki. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-91 BEING A RESOLUTION APPROVING APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS TO THE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the City has, by the adoption of a formal resolution, duly created an Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) for the City of Columbia Heights, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469 (Act), and WItEREAS, the resolution provides that the Board of Commissioners of the HRA shall consist of five members, who shall be residents of the area of operation of the HRA, and WItEREAS, the Mayor has this day appointed the following Commissioners of the HRA for the terms as indicated: Robert A. Williams Bruce Nawrocki Gary L. Peterson Term Ending 1/3/2005 Term Ending 1/3/2005 Term Ending 1/6/2003 and, WHEREAS, the terms of the Commissioners shall coincide with their respective terms of office as a City Councilmember. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Columbia Heights hereby approves appointment of the above named persons as Commissioners of the HRA for the terms as indicated herein. Passed this 11m day of December, 2000. Offered by: Szurek Seconded by: Wyckoff Roll Call: All ayes Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk 12) Adopt Resolution No. 2000-87 being a resolution adopting 2001-2003 Salary and Fringe Benefit Adjustment for Non-Union Supervisory Employees MOTION to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-87, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION to adopt Resolution 2000-87, adopting changes in non-union group salary ranges, and establishing salaries and changes in fringe December 11, 2000 Page 8 of 26 benefits for non-unionized supervisory City positions for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003. Fehst stated this would include a yearly 3.5 per cent salary increase and a $20, $30, and $30 per year insurance benefit increase, which follows City Council guidelines. RESOLUTION 2000-87 ADOPTING CHANGES IN NON-UNION SUPERVISORY SALARY RANGES, ESTABLISHING SALARIES FOR NON-UNIONIZED SUPERVISORY POSITIONS, AND CHANGES IN FRINGE BENEFITS WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights adopted a Wage Compensation Program for Non-Unionized City Employees effective January 1, 1980 (Resolution 80-47), which indicated that on an annual basis changes will be adopted in Group Salary Ranges based upon reliable survey data; and, WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights adopted a Comparable Worth Implementation Plan effective January 1, 1988 (Resolution 88-50), to assure comparable compensation for positions with comparable skill, efforts, responsibilities, and work conditions, and proportional compensation for positions where such factors are different; and, WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights annually reviews the Employer's share for various insurance programs for its non-unionized supervisory employees to compare what is paid for other employee groups in the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City of Columbia Heights establishes salary ranges and Employer contribution to insurances for non-unionized supervisory City positions, as indicated on Schedule A which is on file in the Office of the City Manager, for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that movement through the salary range is contingent upon satisfactory performance of the employee. Passed this 11th day of December, 2000. Offered by: Szurek Seconded by: Wyckoff Roll Call: All ayes Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk 13) 'Adopt Resolution No. 2000-88 being a resolution adopting 2001-2003 Salary and Fringe Benefit Adjustment for Non-Union Essential and Confidential Employees MOTION to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-88, there being ample copies available to the public. December 11, 2000 Page 9 of 26 MOTION to adopt Resolution 2000-88, adopting changes in non-union group salary ranges, and establishing salaries and changes in fringe benefits for non-unionized essential and confidential City positions for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003. RESOLUTION 2000-88 ADOPTING CHANGES IN NON-UNION ESSENTIAL AND CONFIDENTIAL SALARY RANGES, ESTABLISHING SALARIES FOR NON-UNIONIZED ESSENTIAL AND CONFIDENTIAL POSITIONS, AND CHANGES IN FRINGE BENEFITS WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights adopted a Wage Compensation Program for Non-Unionized City Employees effective January 1, 1980 (Resolution 80-47), which indicated that on an annual basis changes will be adopted in Group Salary Ranges based upon reliable survey data; and, WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights adopted a Comparable Worth Implementation Plan effective January 1, 1988 (Resolution 88-50), to assure comparable compensation for positions with comparable skill, efforts, responsibilities, and work conditions, and proportional compensation for positions where such factors are different; and, WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights annually reviews the Employer's share for various insurance programs for its non-unionized essential and confidential employees to compare what is paid for other employee groups in the City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Columbia Heights establishes salary ranges and Employer contribution to insurances for non-unionized essential and confidential City positions, as indicated on Schedule B which is on file in the office of the City Manager for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003; and BE IT FLIRTHER RESOLVED that movement through the salary range is contingent upon satisfactory performance of the employee. Passed this 11m day of December, 2000. Offered by: Szurek Seconded by: Wyckoff Roll Call: All ayes Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk 14) Adopt Resolution No. 2000-89 being a resolution adopting 2001-2003 Teamsters Labor Agreement - Police Officers MOTION to waive the reading of Resolution No.2000-89, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION to adopt Resolution 2000-89, regarding the Labor Agreement between the City of Columbia Heights and the Teamsters, Local 320- Police Officers, effective January 1, 2001 -December 31, 2003. December 11, 2000 Page 10 of 26 RESOLUTION 2000-89 REGARDING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS AND TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 320, POLICE OFFICERS WHEREAS, negotiations have proceeded between the Teamsters, Local 320, representing Police Officers of the City, and members of the City negotiating team, and said negotiations have resulted in a mutually acceptable contract for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003. WHEREAS, a copy of said contract is available for inspection at the Office of the City Manager and is made a part hereof by reference; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the contract agreement as negotiated, be and is hereby established as the salary and fringe benefit program for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003 for Teamsters, Local 320-Police Officers, bargaining unit employees of the City; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager be authorized to execute this agreement. Passed this 11th day of December, 2000. Offered by: Szurek Seconded by: Wyckoff Roll Call: All ayes Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk Adopt Resolution No. 2000~93, being a Resolution adopting a Revised Personnel Policy Manual MOTION to waive the reading of Resohtion No. 2000-93, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION to adopt Resolution 2000-93, being a resolution adopting a revised Personnel Policy Manual. Fehst stated changes were for housekeeping purposes, clarification of policies, and were aligned to State Statutes and regulations, and Federal laws and regulatiohs. RESOLUTION 2000-93 ADOPTING REVISED PERSONNEL POLICY MANUAL WHEREAS, in order to establish an equitable and uniform procedure for dealing with personnel matters, the City of Columbia Heights previously adopted a Personnel Policy Manual dated November 13, 1989; and, WHEREAS, a thorough review of the Personnel Policy Manual has been conducted; and, WHEREAS, as a result of the review, revisions to the Personnel Policy Manual are recommended for adoption; and, December 11, 2000 Page 11 of 26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Columbia Heights City Council that it does hereby adopt the revised Personnel Policy Manual, dated December 11, 2000, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Manager; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such revised Personnel Policy Manual be effective December 11, 2000. Passed this 11 th day of December, 2000. Offered by: Szurek Seconded by: Wyckoff Roll Call: All ayes Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk 16) Adopt Resolution No. 2000-94, being a Resolution adopting the IUOE Labor Agreement for 2001-2003 MOTION to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-94, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION to adopt Resolution 2000-94, regarding the Labor Agreement between the City of Columbia Heights and the Intemational Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49, effective January 1, 2001 - December 31, 2003. RESOLUTION 2000-94 REGARDING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 49 WHEREAS, negotiations have proceeded between the Intemational Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), Local No. 49, representing employees of the Public Works Department and members of the City negotiating team, and said negotiations have resulted in a mutually acceptable contract for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003. WHEREAS, a copy of said contract is available at the Office of the City Manager and is made a part hereof by reference; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the contract agreement, as negotiated, be and is hereby established as the salary and fringe benefit program for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003, for IUOE bargaining unit employees of the City; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager be authorized to execute this agreement. Passed this 11th day of December, 2000. Offered by: Szurek Seconded by: Wyckoff Roll Call: All ayes Mayor Gary L. Peterson December 11, 2000 Page 12 of 26 Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk Adopt Resolution No. 2000-90, adopting the 2000-2001 Snow and Ice Control Policy for the City of Columbia Heights MOTION to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-90, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION to approve and adopt Resolution No. 2000-90 adopting the 2000-2001 Snow and Ice Control Policy for the City of Columbia Heights. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-90 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SNOW AND ICE CONTROL POLICY WHEREAS, a Snow and Ice Control Policy has been developed and recommended by City staff; and WHEREAS, adoption of said policy has been determined to be in the best interest of the City of Columbia Heights, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights that said Snow and Ice Control Policy is hereby approved and adopted. Dated this 11th day of December, 2000. Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk Approval of Purchase Agreement for Single Family Residential Property at 1307 42"d Avenue MOTION to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the purchase agreement for the acquisition of 1307 42nd Avenue in the amount of$111,500 for flood mitigation purposes with funds from the City's Storm Water Utility and DNR Flood Mitigation Grant funds on a 50/50 cost share. Fehst stated this purchase is under the program to provide storm water relief with 50 percent paid by the storm water utility fund and 50 percent from DNR funds. 19) Authorize Final Payment for 1999 Alley Construction MOTION to accept the work for 1999 Alley Improvements, City Project 9902 and to authorize payment of $36,959.08 to Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. of Elko, Minnesota. Fehst stated this payment is the close out of work from last year's alley warranty work. December 11, 2000 Page 13 of 26 20) Approve renewal of Joint Powers Agreement and Values First/SACCC Coordinator Services MOTION to approve the renewal of the Joint Powers Agreement with the 'Southem Anoka County Community Consortium and the payment of the annual fees for FY 2001 and 2002. Fehst stated the joint consortium of Hilltop, Fridley, the school districts and Columbia Heights contribute to the Values First Program. Our Chief of Police serves on this board. He indicated that Barb Warren, Coordinator, has brought great credibility to this program. Establish Hearing Dates Re: License Revocation or Suspension of Rental Properties at 4421 5m Street NE MOTION to establish a Heating Date of December 27, 2000 for Revocation or Suspension of a License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against Steve Anderson at 4421 5th Street NE 22) Adopt Resolution No. 2000-96, being a resolution declaring the Contents of the Building on the property located at XXXX North Upland Crest as Hazardous MOTION to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-96, there being 'ample copies available to the public. MOTION to adopt Resolution No. 2000-96, being a resolution directing the removal of hazardous conditions located at XXXX Noah Upland Crest N.E., to charge all costs in the form of a special assessment to the property in an amount not to exceed $15,000; and furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into agreements for the same. Fehst stated that this project took 4 or 5 days to clean up, and asked for Council approval to assess the homeowner for clean up costs. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-96 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS REQUESTING REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS STRUCTURES LOCATED AT XXXX NORTH UPLAND CREST N.E. WHEREAS, there are substandard buildings located at XXXX North Upland Crest which has been unsafe for a period in excess of six months, and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 463.15 to 463.26 authorizes municipalities to address hazardous and substandard structures and properties, and WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights finds this property to be hazardous based on the following code violations as contained in the Findings of Fact: December 11, 2000 Page 14 of 26 Findings of Fact Dangerous Building Definitions Chapter 3 of the 1994 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings: 302(9) Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used. 302(17) Whenever any building or structure is in such a condition as to constitute a public nuisance known to the common law or in equity jurisprudence. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED on the Building Official's conclusions that, the structure at XXXX Noah Upland Crest is substandard, it is full of debris, and lacks minimum standards for habitable space per 1998 MN State Building Code and 1994 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, and the Building Official is recommending the structure bc abated by removal of the contents and restoration of mechanical systems. Conclusions of Council That all relevant parties have been duly notified of this action. That the structure on the property at XXXX North Upland Crest is hazardous and in violation of many local, state and national code requirements. That the structure can be rehabilitated to bring them into compliance with local, state and national code requirements. Order of Council 11. The dwelling and accessory structure located at XXXX North Upland Crest, Columbia Heights, Minnesota, are hazardous buildings pursuant to Minn. Stat. 463.152, 463.616. 12. Pursuant to the foregoing findings and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, the City Council hereby orders the record owner of the above-hazardous building, or his/her heirs, to abate the buildings hazards. 13. The City Council further orders that if the City is compelled to take any correction action herein, all necessary costs expended by the City will be assessed against the real estate concemed, and collected in accordance with Minn. Stat. 463.22. 14. The Mayor, the Clerk, City Attorney and other officers and employees of the City are authorized and directed to take such action, prepare, sign and serve such papers as are necessary to comply with this order, and to assess the cost thereof against the real estate described above for collection, along with taxes. Passed this 11~h day of December, 2000. Offered by: Szurek Seconded by: Wyckoff Roll Call: All ayes December 11, 2000 Page 15 of 26 Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk 23) Approve Rental Housing License Applications MOTION to approve the items listed for rental housing license applications for December 11, 2000 24) Approve License Applications MOTION to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for December 11, 2000 and to deny the application by James Eng for a motor vehicle sales license at 5101 University Avenue as it would not be in compliance with zoning regulations. 25) Payment of Bills MOTION to pay the bills as listed out of proper funds. Wyckoff questioned the vehicle sale. Police Chief Tom Johnson indicated that two vehicles were soM at the Hennepin County Auction for amounts above which would normally be received through a sale at the City Auction. Wyckoff asked if the personnel policy changes wouM be given to the employees? Fehst stated this could be done. Wyckoff questioned the alley contract warranty work. Kevin Hansen, Public l'Vorks Director, stated that the construction company has met all specifications and warranty work. Hansen stated there is also a one-year warranty after acceptance by the Council. The final cost was $1 O, 000 under what was originally projected. Wyckoff questioned "games of skill ". Chief Johnson indicated they are games such as pinball and video arcade games. Bruce Nawrocki spoke relative to the proposed budget. He felt the increase of l O% to property taxes was out of line. He gave figures comparing other metro cities. He stated that we have one of the highest tax rates in the Metro area. Upon Vote: All ayes. Motion carried. PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND GUESTS A. Proclamations - none B. Presentations - none C. Introduction of New Employees Tina Foss - Park and Recreation Department Keith VFindschitl, Recreation Director, introduced and welcomed Tina Foss, as the new Recreation Department Clerk Typist II. Tina Foss thanked the City Council. December 11, 2000 Page 16 of 26 D. Recognition Mayor Peterson awarded Harold Hoium with a Certificate of Appreciation and a picture of the people who worked on the project. Mr. Hoium thanked him. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing for Revocation/Suspension of Rental Housing License at 4600 Polk Street Mayor Peterson closed the Public Hearing as the property is in compliance with the Residential Maintenance Code. Public Hearing for Revocation/Suspension of Rental Housing License at 4023 6th Street Mayor Peterson closed the Public Hearing as the property is in compliance with the Residential Maintenance Code. Public Hearing for Revocation/Suspension of Rental Housing License at 1206- 1208 Circle Terrace Mayor Peterson closed the Public Hearing as the property is in compliance with the Residential Maintenance Code. D, Public Hearing for Revocation/Suspension of Rental Housing License at 4055- 4057 University Avenue Mayor Peterson opened the Public Heating. Dana Alexon, Assistant Fire Chief, gave a history since July of 1999 of the rental license violations, extensions granted, contacts with the owner, and outstanding inspection fees. Council discussed the violations and which items could be completed during the winter. Theresa Wacoviak, 4057 University Avenue, a renter at this site, informed Council of attempts to have the landlord correct problems, and of her attempts to purchase this property. She was concerned about being evicted. Jim Hoe~, City Attorney, stated eviction could range from 60 to 120 days. He stated referrals could be made to Judacare for tenant's rights and that she should meet with the Assistant Fire Chief for details. Mayor Peterson closed the public heating. MOTION by Hunter, second by Wyckoff, to waive the reading of Resolution No.2000-98, there being ample copies available to the public. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION by Hunter, second by Wyckoff, to adopt Resolution No. 2000-98, being a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights approving Revocation pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 5A.408(1 ) of the Rental License December 11, 2000 Page 17 of 26 held by Kwei Fang regarding property at 4055-4057 University Avenue. All ayes. Motion eartied. RESOLUTION 2000-98 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS APPROVING REVOCATION PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE CODE SECTION 5A.408(1) OF THAT CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL RENTAL LICENSE HELD BY KWEI FANG (HEREINAFTER "LICENSE HOLDER"). WHEREAS, LICENSE HOLDER IS THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4055-4057 UNIVERSITY AVENUE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, AND WHEREAS, PURSUANT TO COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CODE SECTION 5.104(1)(A), WRITTEN NOTICE SETTING FORTH THE CAUSES AND REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED COUNCIL ACTION CONTAINED HEREIN WAS GIVEN TO THE LICENSE HOLDER ON OCTOBER 18, 2000 OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON DECEMBER 11, 2000. NOW, THEREFORE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING, AND ALL ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS MAKES THE FOLLOWING: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That on July 29, 1999, Matt Field and John Larkin, inspectors for the City of Columbia Heights, inspected the property and noted a total of thirteen violations. Compliance orders listing the violations were mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed on the Rental Housing License Application. 2. That on October 5, 1999, Matt Field and John Larkin, inspectors for the City of Columbia Heights, were scheduled to inspect the property, but the owner called and requested an time extension. A 30-day time extension was granted. An extension letter listing the violations was mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed on the Rental Housing License Application. 3. That on November 19, 1999, Matt Field and John Larkin, inspectors for the City of Columbia Heights were scheduled to inspect the property, but called and advised that there were problems with his tenants and that he would not be able to let us in to the building. A 30-day time extension was granted. An extension letter listing the violations was mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed on the Rental Housing License Application. In a series of problems with the owner showing up and with the owner' s tenants not cooperating with the owner in regards to allow inspectors into the building, extensions on the outside violations were granted until spring. In the meantime, the inspectors attempted to reinspect the violations on the inside of the building. 4. That on March 28, 2000, Gary Gorman and Rich Hinrichs, inspectors for the City of Columbia Heights, reinspeeled unit number 4055 and noted that all violations were corrected. Inspectors were not able to get into unit number 4057, in which five violations remained and four violations remained on the exterior of the property. Compliance orders listing the violations were mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed on the Rental Housing License Application. December 11, 2000 Page 18 of 26 5. That on April 27, 2000, Gary Gorman and Rich Hinrichs, inspectors for the City of Columbia Heights, reinspected and noted that nine violations remained uncorrected. Inspectors were not able to get into unit number 4057, in which five violations remained and four violations remained on the exterior of the property. The owner once again requested a time extension, stating that all tenants in the building were given eviction notices and that he wanted to get the tenants out and make the repairs and the have the reinspection performed. The extension was granted to June 29, 2000. Compliance orders listing the violations were mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed on the Rental Housing License Application. 6. That on June 29, 2000, Gary Gorman and Rich Hinrichs, inspectors for the City of Columbia Heights, reinspected and noted that three violations remained uncorrected. Inspectors were able to get into unit number 4057, in which all violations were corrected. It was noted that three violations remained on the exterior of the property. Compliance orders listing the violations were mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed on the Rental Housing License Application. 7. That on August 14, 2000, Gary Gorman and Rich Hindchs, inspectors for the City of Columbia Heights, reinspected and noted that three violations remained uncorrected. The owner once again requested a time extension, stating that the contractor that was contracted to do the work had not show up after starting the work. The extension was granted to October 18, 2000. An extension notice listing the violations was mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed on the Rental Housing License Application. 8. That on October 18, 2000, Gary Gorman and Rich Hinrichs, inspectors for the City of Columbia Heights, reinspected and noted that three violations remained uncorrected. The owner once again requested a time extension, stating that the contractor had performed some additional work on the wall but had not been back to finish the job. Assistant Fire Chief Alexon contacted the contractor and received information that there was an ongoing dispute between the owner and the contractor regarding payment. The extension was denied. A thirty day notice was given to have all completed, tenants that are remaining were notified and compliance orders listing the violations were mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed on the Rental Housing License Application. 9. That on November 14, 2000, Gary Gorman and Rich Hinrichs, inspectors for the City of Columbia Heights, reinspected and noted that three violations remained tincorrected. Compliance orders listing the violations were mailed by certified mail to the owner at the address listed on the Rental Housing License Application. 10. That based upon said records of the Enforcement Officer, the following conditions and violations of the City's Housing Maintenance Code were found to exist, to-wit: · A. FAILURE TO CORRECT VIOLATION OF THE HOUSING MAINTENANCE CODE B. FAILURE TO SUBMIT REINSPECTION FEES OF $250.00 11 That all parties, including the License Holder and any occupants or tenants, have been given the appropriate notice of this hearing according to the provisions of the City Code Section 5A.306(1) and 5A.303(1)(d). December 11, 2000 Page 19 of 26 CONCLUSIONS OF COUNCIL 1. That the building located at 4055-4057 University Avenue is in violation of the provisions of the Columbia Heights City Code as set forth in the Compliance Order attached hereto. 2. That all relevant parties and parties in interest have been duly served notice of this heating, and any other hearings relevant to the revocation or suspension of the license held by License Holder. 3. That all applicable rights and periods of appeal as relating to the license holder, owner, occupant, or tenant, as the case may be, have expired, or such rights have been exercised and completed. ORDER OF COUNCIL 1. The rental license belonging to the License Holder described herein and identified by license number F4539 is hereby revoked/suspended (cross out one) 2. The City will post for the purpose of preventing occupancy a copy of this order on the buildings covered by the license held by License Holder 3. All tenants shall remove themselves from the premises within 60 days from the first day of posting of this Order revoking the license as held by License Holder. Passed this 11th day of December, 2000 Motion by: Hunter Second by: Wyckoff Roll call: All ayes Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1424, Being an Ordinance Regulating the Zoning of Wireless Communications Towers and Wireless Communications Facilities (Tower Siting Ordinance) MOTION by Szurek, second by Jolly, to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1424, there being ample copies available for the public. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION by Szurek, second by Jolly, to adopt Ordinance No. 1424, Columbia Heights Tower Siting Ordinance, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, regulating the zoning of wireless communication towers and wireless communications facilities; providing intent and definitions; providing minimum standards for location, visual impact and approval of wireless communications towers; providing minimum standards for the location, visual impact and approval of wireless communications antennas and facilities; providing for shared use of wireless communications towers; providing for inspections; providing for conflict; providing for severability; providing for inclusion in the city code; providing for an effective date. All ayes. Motion carried. (Ordinance attached to the end of this document) December 11, 2000 Page 20 of 26 Reconvene Public Heating to Approve Modified Redevelopment Plan for CBD Redevelopment Project and TIF Plan for TIF District (Redevelopment) No. 9. MOTION by Hunter, second by Szurek, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-67, there being ample copies available to the public. Upon vote: Szurek - yes, Jolly - yes, Wyckoff- no, Hunter - yes, Peterson - yes. Motion carried, 4 ayes to 1 nay. MOTION by Hunter, second by Szurek, to adopt Resolution 2000-67, being a Resolution Approving a Modified Redevelopment Plan for the Central Business District Redevelopment Project and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District (Redevelopment) No. 9. (Transition Block Redevelopment Project - Crest View/Real Estate Equities) Joyce Shellito, 403 7h Street, asked when the project would be completed and was concerned there would not be sufficient parking for the Assisted Senior Living facility. Peterson estimated the project would be completed in March 2001. Shirley Barnes, Crest View Corporation, addressed her parking concerns. Jolly addressed the need for this type of fadlity in the community. Bruce Nawrocki felt this project is too large for this small area, and was concerned about sufficient play space for children of the residents. He stated the increased storm and sanitary sewer output from the area should be a concern. He disagreed with the 44 street parking permits committed to NEI. Nawrocki stated that property taxes would increase with these additional new children attending local schools. He requested the project be re-evaluated. Bobby William& 4047 Cleveland Street, agreed that we have a need for this facility. Keith Jans, Real Estate Equities, answered earlier comments, stating there is an 80 by 200foot play area for children, parking for the rental units exceeds the requirement of 2 stalls per unit, the sewer problem is a long standing issue, street parking along NEI is now being used by their students, and the school district is anxious to have more students as their funding is based on numbers. He thanked the City Council for their support of this project. Hunter says he supports and is proud of this project. Mary Callaghan, .4219 Jackson, expressed concern on increased water usage, sewer and storm water capacities, and fire vehicle access. Wyckoff indicated she would vote no on this development. She sited contacts with residents who have concerns about this project, she was not agreeable to the use of Tax Increment Financing funds, exclusive parking permits to NEI along 44th Avenue, and would like to see a smaller number of town homes placed here. Jolly supported the project. Marilyn Wick-Schneider, a Fridley resident, stated renters do pay a share of property taxes as renters, and are contributing members and workers in the community. She supported the project. December 11, 2000 Page 21 of 26 Peterson felt this is an excellent development. He reminded everyone that initially the project included '7or sale" townhomes, but was dropped only to meet NEl parking requirements. He respects the engineer's advice that this will create no additional sewer and storm water management problems. He felt these water problems need to be addressed separately, possibly through home inspections requiring disconnection of any water being pumped to the sanitary sewer system. Peterson was pleased that this new development would bring new children to the community. He referenced the small amount his property taxes have increased in thirty years. Peterson stated that Columbia Heights staff has done an excellent job providing services to the community. Upon vote: Szurek - yes, Jolly - yes, Wyckoff- no, Hunter - yes, Peterson - yes. Motion carried, 4 ayes to 1 nay. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 - 67 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (REDEVELOPMENT) NO. 9 BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota (City) as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City of Colttmbia Heights ("City") has previously established the Central Business District Redevelopment Project (the "Project") and a redevelopment plan therefor (the "Redevelopment Plan"), originally administered by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Columbia Heights CHRA"). 1.02. By resolution approved January 8, 1996, the City transferred the control, authority and operation of the Project from the HRA to the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority ("Authority"). 1.03. The Authority has proposed the establishment within the Project of Tax Increment Financing District (Redevelopment) No. 9 (the "TIF District") and a Tax Increment Financing Plan CTIF Plan") therefor, pursuant to the HRA Law and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179 ( the "TIF Act"). 1.04. The Authority has caused to be prepared a document titled "City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, Columbia Heights EDA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District (Redevelopment) No. 9 (Transition Block Redevelopment Project - Crest View/Real Estate Equities)" (the "Plan"). 1.05. The Authority has submiRed the Plan to the City Planning and Zoning Commission, which has found that it conforms to the comprehensive City plan. 1.06. Estimates of the fiscal and economic implications of the Plan were presented to the appropriate school and county boards and officials at least 30 days before the public heating on the Plan. 1.07. By resolution approved September 25, 2000, the Authority has approved the Plan and has recommended approval thereof by this Council, and such resolution, and its findings and supporting documentation is hereby incorporated herein. 1.08. This City Council has fully reviewed the contents of the Plan and on this date conducted a December 11, 2000 Page 22 of 26 public hearing thereon, at which the views of all interested persons were heard. Section 2. Findings; Project. 2.01. It is hereby found and determined that within the Project there is a need to improve the tax base and housing and employment opportunities, and to provide an impetus for commercial development. 2.02. It is further specifically found and determined that: a) the land within the Project would not be made available for development without the public intervention and financial assistance described in the Plan; b) the Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Project by private enterprise; and c) the Project and the Plan conform to the general plan for development of the City as set forth in the comprehensive municipal plan. 2.03. It is found and determined that it is necessary and desirable for the sound and orderly development of the Project and the City as a whole, and for the protection and preservation of the public health, safety, and general welfare, that the authority of the TIF Act be exercised by the City to provide public financial assistance as described in the Plan. 2.04. It is further found and determined, and it is the reasoned opinion of the City, that the development proposed in the Plan for TIF District No. 9 could not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the plan. 2.05. The proposed public improvements to be financed in part through tax increment financing are necessary to permit the City to realize the full potential of the TIF District and Project in terms of development intensity, housing and employment opportunities, and tax base. 2.06. The Plan conforms to the general plan of development of the City as a whole. 2.07. The Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the TIF District and Project by private enterprise. 2.08. TIF District No. 9 is a redevelopment district under Section 469.174, subd. 10 of the TIF Act, based on the findings described in the Plan, which are incorporated herein by reference, and other records on file with the City, which are also incorporated herein by reference. 2.09. Reasons and facts supporting the findings herein are set forth in the TIF Plan. The City has also relied upon the reports and recommendations of its staff as well as the personal knowledge of members of the City Council in reaching its conclusions regarding TIF District No. 9. 2.10. The City elects to make a qualifying local contribution under Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.1399, subd. 6(d), and therefore anticipates that the TIF District will be exempt from state aid loss under that statute. December 11, 2000 Page 23 of 26 Section 3. Plan Adopted; Certification; Filing. 3.01. The Plan is hereby approved and adopted and the Redevelopment Plan is hereby modified accordingly. 3.02. The Board hereby makes all the findings set forth in the Plan, which is incorporated herein by reference. 3.03. City staff and consultants are authorized to take all actions necessary to implement the Plan, including negotiation and preparation of agreements in connection with development and redevelopment within the TIF District and Project area. City staff and consultants are further authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution together with a certified copy of the Plan to Anoka County with a request that the original tax capacity of the property within TIF District No. 9 be certified to the City pursuant to Section 469.177, subd. 1 of the TIF Act, and to file a copy of the Plan with the Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue as required by the TIF Act. Passed this 11th day of December, 2000 Offered by: Hunter Seconded by: Szurek Roll Call: All ayes Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION A. Other Ordinances and Resolutions 1. Adopt Resolution 2000-97, Being a Resolution Approving Contract for Private Development and Associated Agreements between the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority and Columbia Heights Transition Block, LLC. MOTION by Hunter, second by Szurek, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-97, there being ample copies available to the public. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION by Hunter, second by Szurek, to adopt Resolution 2000-97, being a Resolution approving Agreements Relating to a Proposed Development in Tax Increment Financing District No. 9 with the City (Transition block-Crest View/Real Estate Equities). Ken Anderson, Community Development Director, stated all actions necessary for this development have been approved by the Economic Development Authority, and he explained all grants and loans made available to the developer. Upon vote: Szurek - yes, Jolly - yes, Wyckoff- no, Hunter - yes, Peterson - yes. Motion carried, 4 ayes to 1 nay. December 11, 2000 Page 24 of 26 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-97 RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENTS RELATING TO A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 9 WITBIN TBE CITY BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota (City) as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City of Columbia Heights ("City") has previously established the Central Business District Redevelopment Project (the "Project") and a redevelopment plan therefor (the "Redevelopment Plan"), originally administered by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Columbia Heights CHRA"). 1.02. By resolution approved January 8, 1996, the City transferred the control, authority and operation of the Project from the HRA to the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority ("Authority"). 1.03. The Authority has proposed the establishment within the Project of Tax Increment Financing District (Redevelopment) No. 9 (the "TIF District") and a Tax Increment Financing Plan CTIF Plan") therefore, pursuant to the HRA Law and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179 ( the "TIF Act"). 1.04. The Authority and the City have approved a document titled "City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, Columbia Heights EDA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District (Redevelopment) No. 9 (Crestview/Real Estate Equities Project)" (the "Plan") and the creation of the Tax Increment Financing District (Redevelopment) No. 9 described in the Plan (the "TIF District"). 1.05. The City Council has reviewed certain agreements presented to it, and certain agreements presented to the Authority, in connection with development of an affordable housing project (the "Affordable Housing Project") and a senior housing project (the "Senior Housing Project") proposed within the TIF District and has determined that approval of such agreements will be in the best interests of the City and its residents and will further the public health, safety, and welfare. Section 2. Approvals. 2.01. The following documents are hereby approved, and the authorized officials directed to execute the same, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transactions and are approved by such officials, provided that execution of the documents by such officials is conclusive evidence of their approval: a. The Community Development Block Grant Agreement in the amount of $127,000 by and between the City and Columbia Heights Housing Limited Partnership I. b. The Community Development Block Loan Agreement in the amount of $104,000 by and between the City and Columbia Heights Housing Limited Partnership I. c. The Livable Community Act Fund Grant in the amount of $235,350 by and between the City and Columbia Heights Transition Block LLC. d. The Livable Community Act Fund Grant in the amount of $235,350 by and between the City and Crest View ONDC I. December 11, 2000 Page 25 of 26 Project. The Payment in Lieu of Taxes (P.I.L.O.T) Agreement pertaining to the Affordable Housing 2.02. The City hereby approves all actions taken or approved by the Authority with regard to the Affordable Housing Project and the Senior Housing Project, including but not limited to the Authority's approval of a Resolution Approving Contract For Private Development And Awarding The Sale Of, And Providing The Form, Terms, Covenants And Directions For The Issuance Of Its $175,100 Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2000 and a Resolution Approving Contract For Private Development And Awarding The Sale Of, And Providing The Form, Terms, Covenants And Directions For The Issuance Of Its $780,000 Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2000. 2.03. City staff and consultants are authorized to take all actions necessary to implement the agreements hereby approved. Passed this 11th day of December, 2000 Offered by: Hunter Second by: Szurek Roll Call: Szurek -'aye, Jolly - aye, Hunter- aye, Peterson - aye, Wyckoff- nay Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk B, Bid Considerations - none Other Business - none ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Report of the City Manager - none B. Report of the City Attomey- none GENERAL COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS A. Minutes of Boards and Commissions 1) Meeting of the November 29, 2000 Park and Recreation Commission 10. CITIZENS FORUM (At this time, citizens have an opportunity to discuss with the Council items not on the regular agenda.) Bobby William& Councilmember elect, questioned job classifications and salary adjustments. Jolly stated past practice for position evaluations was through the HA Y System. Linda Magee, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that in 1984 the Legislature passed a pay equity act which required all public entities to conduct a job evaluation of positions based on know- how, problem solving, accountability and worMng conditions. The City used and still uses the Hay System of job evaluation. It is an evaluation of positions - not people. Currently, the State has a reporting system and a statistical method of determining whether cities are in compliance. Ira supervisor feels a position needs to be re-evaluated, that position is reviewed. It may or may not result in a change. December 11, 2000 Page 26 of 26 She stated that the City of Columbia Heights has six bargaining units represented by~ve unions. Job evaluations and classifications are not a negotiable item. Ira union position is re-evaluated and an adjustment is necessary, the position will be placed within the appropriate wage schedule, if one exits. If it doesn't exist, the wage schedule would be negotiated. Peterson expressed the Council's appreciation of Ms. Magee's work and her work with union negotiations. Peterson requested the high school students present introduce themselves. Karen Ponser and Melissa Pannes, from Mr. Thomas's Civics class were present. 11. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Peterson adjourned at 9:05 pm. Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk COLUMBIA HEIGHTS TOWER SITING ORDINANCE NO. 1424 Table of Contents 1. Purpose ................................................................................................................................2 2. Definitions ............................................................................................................................3 3. Applicability ........................................................................................................................6 4. Exempt from City Review ...................................................................................................7 5. Permitted Locations .............................................................................................................7 6. Existing Towers ...................................................................................................................8 7. Co-Location Use, Modification and Relocation of Existing Towers ..................................9 8. Application to Locate Wireless Communications Facility on Existing Tower ................. 10 9. Wireless Communications Facilities on Antenna Support Structures ...............................11 10. Application to Locate Wireless Communications Facility on Antenna Support Structure .............................................................................................................12 11. Utility Pole-Mounted Wireless Communication Facilities ................................................14 12. Application for Utility Pole-Mounted Wireless Communications Facility .......................15 13. Construction of New Towers .............................................................................................16 a. Conditions of Approval for Wireless Communications Towers ..................................16 b. Requirements for Separation Between Towers ............................................................16 c. Standards for Co-Location ...........................................................................................17 d. Tower Design and Type ...............................................................................................18 e. Landscaping Minimum Requirements .........................................................................19 f. Visual Impact Standards ..............................................................................................19 14. Application Process for New Towers ........................................; .......................................21 15. Annual Registration Requirement ......................................................................................24 a. Wireless Communications Facilities ............................................................................24 b. Wireless Communications Towers ..............................................................................24 16. General Requirements ........................................................................................................25 a. Duration of Permits ......................................................................................................25 b. Assignment and Subleasing .........................................................................................25 c. Aesthetics .....................................................................................................................25 d. Federal and State Requirements ...................................................................................26 e. Licenses or Franchise ...................................................................................................26 f. Discontinued Use .........................................................................................................26 g. Abandoned Tower or Antenna .....................................................................................26 h. FCC Emissions Standards ............................................................................................27 i. Maintenance .................................................................................................................28 j. Emergency ...................................................................................................................28 k. Equipment Cabinets .....................................................................................................29 1. Equipment on Site ........................................................................................................29 m. Inspections ...................................................................................................................29 n. Security ........................................................................................................................29 o. Advances in Technology ..............................................................................................30 17. Review of Applications ......................................................................................................30 18. Appeals ..............................................................................................................................30 19. Revocation .........................................................................................................................30 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, REGULATING THE ZONING OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES; PROVIDING INTENT AND DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LOCATION, VISUAL IMPACT AND APPROVAL OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS; PROVIDING MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR THE LOCATION, VISUAL IMPACT AND APPROVAL OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS AND FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR SHARED USE OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS; PROVIDING FOR INSPECTIONS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CITY CODE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota (the "City") has received numerous inquiries from wireless communications service providers for the location and construction of wireless communications towers in the City; and WHEREAS, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, expressly preserves the zoning authority of local govemments relating to wireless communications towers and related facilities; and WHEREAS, the City has a limited number of potential sites that would be acceptable for the installation of wireless communications towers and facilities; and WHEREAS, the citizens of the City have expressed great concern about the location of wireless communications towers and related facilities within the City, related to preserving the residential character of the community, promoting the integrity of the City's residential neighborhoods and addressing safety issues; and WHEREAS, the limited number of potential wireless communications tower and wireless communications antenna sites requires the City to address the needs of competing wireless service proriders; and WHEREAS, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have studied and recommended appropriate siting policies to permit the placement of wireless communications towers and related facilities in locations that will balance the interests of public safety, aesthetics, property values and the provision of wireless communications services by the use of such facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the current zoning provisions within the City Code are inadequate as they relate to compatibility of wireless communications tower siting with surrounding properties, proliferation of towers and encouraging co-location of antennas; and WHEREAS, City staff has drafted amendments to the City Code determined to be necessary to protect the aesthetic, health, safety and welfare concerns found to exist. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 9.116(16)(a)(ix) of the City Code is hereby repealed. Section 2. Chapter 9 of the City Code is hereby amended to include a new Section 9.615, to read as follows: "9.615 Wireless Communications Towers and Antennas. 1) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of standards for the development and installation of wireless communications towers, antennas and related facilities. The regulations and requirements contained herein are intended to: (i) regulate the placement, construction and modification of wireless communications towers and related wireless communications facilities in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public and the aesthetic quality of the City; and (ii) encourage managed development of wireless communications infrastructure, while at the same time not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless communications marketplace in the City of Columbia Heights. It is intended that the City shall apply these regulations to accomplish the following: a) Minimize the total number of towers throughout the community through siting standards; b) Encourage the location of towers in non-residential areas and with compatible uses; c) Provide for the appropriate location and development of wireless communications towers, antennas and related facilities within the City, to the extent possible, to minimize potential adverse impacts on the community; d) Minimize adverse visual impacts of wireless communications towers and related facilities through careful design, siting, landscape screening, and innovative camouflaging techniques utilizing current and future technologies; e) Promote and encourage shared use/co-location of towers and antenna support structures; Maintain and preserve the existing residential character of the City of Columbia Heights and its neighborhoods and to promote the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; 2 g) Promote the public safety and avoid the risk of damage to adjacent properties by ensuring that wireless communications towers and related wireless communications facilities are properly designed, constructed, modified, maintained and removed; h) Ensure that wireless communications towers and related wireless communications facilities are compatible with surrounding land uses; i) Encourage the use of alternative support structures, co-location of new antennas on existing wireless communications towers, camouflaged towers, and construction of towers with the ability to locate three or more providers; j) Maintain and ensure that a non-discriminatory, competitive and broad range of wireless communications services and high quality wireless communications infrastructure consistent with federal law are provided to serve the community; and k) Ensure that wireless communications facilities comply with radio frequency emissions standards as promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission. This Section is not intended to regulate satellite dishes, satellite earth station antennas, residential television antennas in private use, multichannel multipoint distribution service antennas, or amateur radio antennas. 2) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section the following terms and phrases shall have the meaning ascribed to them herein: Accessory Structure means a structure or portion of a structure subordinate to and serving the principal structure on the same lot. Accessory Use shall have the meaning set forth in the Land Use and Development Ordinance. Antenna means a device fabricated of fiberglass, metal or other material designed for use in transmitting and/or receiving communications signals and usually attached to a wireless communications tower or antenna support structure. Antenna Support Structure means any building or structure, excluding towers, used or useable for one or more wireless communications facilities. Buffer or Buffering means a natural or landscaped area or screening device intended to separate and/or partially obstruct the view of adjacent land uses or properties from one another so as to lessen the impact and adverse relationship between dissimilar, unrelated or incompatible land uses. 3 City means the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, and any and all departments, agencies and divisions thereof. City Code means the Columbia Heights City Code, as amended from time to time. City Council or Council means the Columbia Heights City Council or its designee. City Manager means the City Manager of the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota or the City Manager' s designee. Co-location means the use of a single wireless communications tower, antenna support structure and/or site by more than one provider. Conditional Use means those uses that are generally compatible with other uses permitted in a zoning district, but that require individual review of their location, design, configuration, intensity and structures, and may require the imposition of conditions pertinent thereto in order to ensure the appropriateness of the use at a particular location. This definition shall only apply to this specific Section and shall not apply to other Sections or provisions of the Land Use and Development Ordinance. Conditional Use Permit means a permit specially and individually granted by the Council after a public hearing thereon by the Planning Commission for any conditional use so permitted in any zoning district. In approving a conditional use permit, the Council may impose reasonable conditions to accomplish the objectives of this Section with respect to use, screening, lighting, hours of operation, noise control, maintenance, operation or other requirements. Equipment Cabinet or Shelter means a structure located near a wireless communications facility that contains electronics, back-up power generators and/or other on-site supporting equipment necessary for the operation of the facility. Existing Tower means any tower designated as an existing tower by subsection 6 of this Section for which a permit has been properly issued prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, including permitted towers that have not yet been constructed so long as such approval is current and not expired. After the effective date of this Ordinance, any tower approved and constructed pursuant to the provisions of this Section shall thereafter be treated as an existing tower for purposes of regulation pursuant to this Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Ordinance. 4 Guyed Tower means a wireless communications tower that is supported, in whole or in part, by guy wires and ground anchors or other means of support besides the superstructure of the tower itself. Land Use and Development Ordinance means Chapter 9 of the Columbia Heights Code, as it may be amended from time to time. Microwave Dish Antenna means a dish-like antenna used to transmit and/or receive wireless communications signals between terminal locations. Monopole Tower means a wireless communications tower consisting of a single pole or spire supported by a permanent foundation, constructed without guy wires and ground anchors. Non-Conformity shall have the meaning given in Minn. Stat.§ 394.22, Subd. 8, or successor statutes, and shall be governed by the provisions of the Land Use and Development Ordinance (Non-Conformities). Ordinance means this Ordinance No. 1424. Panel Antenna means an array of antennas designed to direct, transmit or receive radio signals from a particular direction. Pico Cell means a low-power cell whose coverage area extends 300 to 500 yards. Planning Commission means the Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission. Provider (when used with reference to a system) means a person or entity that provides wireless communications service over a wireless communications facility, whether or not the provider owns the facility. A person that leases a portion of a wireless communications facility shall be treated as a provider for purposes of this Section. Satellite Dish means an antenna device incorporating a reflective surface that is solid, open mesh, or bar con figured that is shallow dish, cone, horn, or comucopia-shaped and is used to transmit and/or receive electromagnetic signals. This definition is meant to include, but is not limited to, what are commonly referred to as satellite earth stations, TVROs and satellite microwave antennas. Self-support/Lattice Tower means a tower structure requiring no guy wires for support. Stealth or Camouflaged Tower, Equipment Cabinet or Facility means any wireless communications tower, equipment cabinet or facility designed to hide, obscure or conceal the presence of the tower, antenna, equipment cabinet or other 3) related facility. The stealth technology used must incorporate the wireless communications tower, equipment cabinet and facility into and be compatible with the existing or proposed uses of the site. Examples of stealth facilities include, but are not limited to: architecturally screened roof-mounted antennas, antennas integrated into architectural elements, and wireless communications towers designed to look like light poles, power poles, trees, flag poles, clocks, steeples or bell towers. Utility Pole-Mounted Facility means a wireless communications facility attached, without regard to mounting, to or upon an electric transmission or distribution pole, sweet light, traffic signal, athletic field light, utility support structure or other similar facility located within a public right-of-way or utility easement approved by the Planning Commission. The facility shall include any associated equipment shelters regardless of where they are located with respect to the mount. Whip Antenna means an omni-directional antenna used to transmit and/or receive radio signals. Wireless Communications Facility means a facility that is used to provide one or more wireless communications services, including, without limitation, arrays, antennas and associated facilities used to transmit and/or receive wireless communications signals. This term does not include wireless communications towers, over-the-air reception devices that deliver or receive broadcast signals, satellite dishes regulated by 47 C.F.R. § 25.104, devices that provide direct-to- home satellite services CDBS") or devices that provide multichannel multi-point distribution services CMMDS") as defined and regulated by 47 C.F.R. § 1.4000, as amended. Wireless Communications Services means those services specified in 47 U.S.C. §§ 332(c)(7)(C) and 332(d)(1)-(2), and any amendments thereto. Wireless Communications Tower means a guyed, monopole or self- support/lattice tower, or extension thereto, constructed as a freestanding structure, supporting one or more wireless communications facilities used in the provision of wireless communications services. Zoning Administrator means the person appointed by the City Manager as provided in the Land Use and Development Ordinance. Applicability. The requirements of this Section apply to the extent provided herein to all new, existing, replacement, re-located or expanded and/or modified wireless communications towers and wireless communications facilities. The requirements of this Section apply throughout the City. It is the express intent of the City to impose, to the extent permitted by applicable law, all requirements of this Section to all land within the City, whether publicly or privately held, including, without limitation, private property, City property, church property, utility property and school property. a) Non-Essential Services. Wireless communications towers and wireless communications facilities will be regulated and permitted pursuant to this Section and not regulated or permitted as essential services, public utilities or private utilities. b) Attempt to Locate on Existing Tower or Antenna Support Structure. Every ownedoperator seeking to locate a wireless communications facility within the City must attempt to locate on an existing wireless communications tower or antenna support structure as required by subsections 7 through 8 of this Section. 4) Exempt from City Review. The following activities shall be permitted without City approvals: a) Amateur Radio - the installation of any antenna and its supporting tower, pole or mast to the extent City regulation is preempted by state or federal law. b) Residential Television Antennas the installation of residential television antennas in private use to the extent preempted by state and federal law. c) Satellite Dishes - the installation of satellite dishes to the extent preempted by state or federal law. d) Mobile News-the use of mobile services equipment providing public information coverage of news events of a temporary or emergency nature. 5) Permitted Locations. The following applies to all wireless communications towers, including re-located or expanded and/or modified towers, but not to existing towers: a) Wireless communications towers less than 120 feet in height shall be a permitted use in the I-1 and 1-2 zoning districts. b) Wireless communications towers greater than or equal to 120 feet in height shall be a conditional use in the I-1 and I-2 zoning districts. c) Wireless communications towers less than 80 feet in height shall be a permitted use in the RB, CBD and GB zoning districts. d) Wireless communications towers greater than or equal to 80 feet in height shall be a conditional use in the RB, CBD and GB zoning districts. e) Wireless communications towers less than 80 feet in height shall only be allowed as a conditional use in the R-l, R-2, R-3, R-4 and LB zoning districts. 7 g) h) Wireless communications towers greater than or equal to 80 feet in height shall not be a permitted use in the R-l, R-2, R-3, R-4 and LB zoning districts. Except where superseded by the requirements of county, state or federal regulatory agencies possessing jurisdiction over wireless communications towers, equipment cabinets and wireless communications facilities, such towers, equipment cabinets and facilities shall be stealth towers, stealth equipment cabinets and stealth facilities camouflaged to blend into the surrounding environment using stealth technology in a manner pre-approved by the City on a case-by-case basis. Utility pole-mounted facilities shall be permitted as accessory uses in all zoning districts. Applications for such facilities shall be subject to the conditions set forth in this Section. 6) Existing Towers. a) Except where otherwise noted, existing towers shall not be rendered non- conforming uses by this Section. The City encourages the use of these existing towers for purposes of co-locating additional wireless communications facilities. Any and all towers erected and in use or approved on or before the effective date of this Ordinance shall be treated as existing towers. These towers shall be considered conforming uses with respect to this Section and the City shall allow co-location on these towers subject to the requirements of subsection 7 of this Section so long as the providers utilize the most visually unobtrusive equipment that is technologically feasible. b) Owners of existing towers shall be required to comply with the requirements and procedures set forth in subections 13 and 14 CConstmction of New Towers" and "Application Process for New Towers") to replace an existing tower. c) Owners of existing towers shall be required to comply with the applicable requirements and procedures set forth in subsections 6, 7, 8 and 13 ("Existing Towers," "Co-location Use, Modification and Relocation of Existing Towers," "Application to Locate Wireless Communications Facility on Existing Tower," and "Construction of New Towers") to modify or relocate an existing tower or to co-locate a wireless communications facility on an existing tower. d) Increases in height of an existing wireless communications tower, modification of an existing wireless communications tower or conversion of an existing wireless communications tower to a stealth or camouflage structure shall be treated as a new tower and subject to all the applicable requirements of this Section. e) Owners of existing wireless communications towers shall be required to comply with the requirements set forth in subsection 15 ("Annual Registration") and subsection 16 ("General Requirements"). 7) Co-Location Use, Modification and Relocation of Existing Towers. Any owner of an existing tower or antenna support structure containing additional capacity suitable for installation or co-location of wireless communications facilities shall permit providers to install or co-locate said facilities on such towers or antenna support structures; provided that no existing tower or antenna support structure shall be used to support wireless communications facilities for more than three separate providers. Any co-location of wireless communications facilities shall be subject to mutually agreeable terms and conditions negotiated between the parties. b) Any existing tower may be modified or relocated to accommodate co-location of additional wireless communications facilities as follows: (i) An application for a wireless communications permit to modify or relocate a wireless communications tower shall be made to the Zoning Administrator. The application shall contain the information required by subsection 14(b)-(c) of this Section. The Zoning Administrator shall have the authority to issue a wireless communications permit without further approval by the Council or the Planning Commission, except as provided in this Section. Any denial of an application for a wireless communications permit to modify or relocate a wireless communications tower for purposes of co-location shall be made in accordance with subsection 14(e) of this Section. (ii) The total height of the modified tower and wireless communications facilities attached thereto shall not exceed the maximum height allowed for a permitted wireless communications tower in the zoning district in which the tower is located, unless a conditional use permit is granted by the City. (iii) Permission to exceed the existing height shall not require an additional distance separation from designated areas as set forth in this Section. The tower's pre-modification height shall be used to calculate such distance separations. (iv) A tower which is being rebuilt to accommodate the co-location of additional wireless communications facilities may be moved on the same parcel subject to compliance with the requirements of this Section. (V) A tower that is relocated on the same parcel shall continue to be measured ~om the original tower location for the purpose of calculating the separation distances between towers as provided herein. 8) Application to Locate Wireless Communications Facility on Existing Tower. a) An application for a wireless communications permit to locate or re-locate a wireless communications facility on an existing tower must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator on the designated form and shall, at a minimum, contain the following: (i) Name, address and telephone number of the applicant; (ii) Location of the existing tower, along with the tower owner's name and telephone number; (iii) Number of applicant's wireless communications facilities to be located on the subject tower; (iv) A sworn and certified statement in writing by a qualified engineer that the wireless communications facility will conform to any and all other construction standards set forth by the City Code, and federal and state law; (v) An application fee in the amount set by the Council for each wireless communications facility listed on the application; (vi) A copy of all licenses and/or franchises required by federal, state or local law for the construction and/or operation of a wireless communications system in the City; (vii) A scaled site plan clearly indicating the location, type and height of the proposed wireless communications facility, on-site land uses and zoning, elevation and stealth design drawings of the proposed wireless communications facility and the supporting tower, topography, and any other information deemed by the City to be necessary to assess compliance with this Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Ordinance; (viii) An inventory of the applicant's existing towers and wireless communications facilities, if any, that are either within the jurisdiction of the City or within one mile of the City limits, including specific information about the location, height, and design of each wireless communications facility or tower; (ix) A certification that the applicant will comply with all applicable federal, state or local laws including all the provisions of the Land Use and Development Ordinance; and 10 (X) A certification that the site described in the application is located on an existing tower and the owner/operator agrees to the co-location of the subject wireless communications facility. b) An application for a wireless communications permit to locate or re-locate a wireless communications facility that proposes to co-locate said facility on an existing tower and that satisfies the requirements set forth in this Section, shall receive expedited treatment in the review process. c) So as to further expedite the permitting process and to promote the efficient use of existing sites, the City encourages the users of existing towers to submit a single application for approval of multiple users on a single existing site. Applications for approval at multiple user sites shall be given priority in the review process. The fee to be submitted with a multiple user application shall be the fee specified in this subsection multiplied by the number of users listed in such application. d) A petitioner shall submit any additional information requested by the City for purposes of evaluating the permit request. e) In granting or denying a wireless communications permit to locate or re-locate a wireless communications facility on an existing tower, the Zoning Administrator shall prepare a written record of decision including findings of fact. 9) Wireless Communications Facilities on Antenna Support Structures. a) All wireless communications facilities to be located on antenna support structures shall be subject to the following minimum standards: (i) Wireless communications facilities shall only be permitted on buildings which are at least thirty-five (35) feet tall. (ii) Wireless communications facilities shall be permitted on the City's water tower; provided that the City may impose reasonable conditions which ensure that such facilities do not interfere with access to or maintenance of the tower. (iii) If an equipment cabinet associated with a wireless communications facility is located on the roof of a building, the area of the equipment cabinet shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height, four hundred (400) square feet in area nor occupy more than ten percent (10%) of the roof area. All equipment cabinets shall be constructed out of nonreflective materials and shall be designed to blend with existing architecture and located or designed to minimize their visibility. b) Antenna dimensions. 11 6) Unless a conditional use permit is obtained from the City, whip antennas and their supports must not exceed 25' in height and 12" in diameter and must be constructed of a material or color which matches the exterior of the antenna support structure. (ii) Unless a conditional use permit is obtained from the City, panel antennas and their supports must not exceed 8' in height or 2.5' in width and must be constructed of a material or color which matches the exterior of the building or structure, so as to achieve maximum compatibility and minimum visibility. (iii) Unless a conditional use permit is obtained from the City, microwave dish antennas located below sixty-five (65) feet above the ground may not exceed six (6) feet in diameter. Microwave dish antennas located sixty- five (65) feet and higher above the ground may not exceed eight (8) feet in diameter. c) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, wireless communications facilities and related equipment shall not be installed on antenna support structures in residential zoning districts, unless a conditional use permit is obtained from the City. d) Wireless communications facilities located on antenna support structures, and their related equipment cabinets, shall be located or screened to minimize the visual impact of such facilities and equipment cabinets upon adjacent properties. Any such screening shall be of a material and color that matches the exterior of the building or structure upon which it is situated. Wireless communications facilities and related equipment cabinets shall be of a stealth design, and shall have an exterior finish and/or design as approved by the City. Application to Locate Wireless Communications Facility on Antenna Support Structure. a) An application for a wireless communications permit to locate or re-locate a wireless communications facility on an antenna support structure must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator on the designated form and shall, at a minimum, contain the following: (i) Name, address and telephone number of the applicant; (ii) Location of the antenna support structure, along with the property owner' s name and telephone number; (iii) Number of applicant's wireless communications facilities to be located on the subject property; 12 (iv) A sworn and certified statement in writing by a qualified engineer that the wireless communications facility will conform to any and all requirements and standards set forth in the City Code, and federal and state law; (v) An application fee in an amount set by the Council for each wireless communications facility listed on the application; (vi) A copy of all licenses and/or franchises required by federal, state or local law for the construction and/or operation of a wireless communications system in the City; (vii) A scaled site plan clearly indicating the location, type and height of the proposed wireless communications facility, on-site land uses and zoning, elevation and stealth design drawings of the proposed wireless communications facility and the rooftop and building, topography, a current survey, landscape plans, and any other information deemed by the City to be necessary to assess compliance with this Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Ordinance; (viii) An inventory of the applicant's existing towers and wireless communications facilities, if any, that are either within the jurisdiction of the City or within one mile of the City limits, including specific information about the location, height, and design of each wireless communications facility or tower; (ix) A certification that the applicant will comply with all applicable federal, state or local laws including all the provisions of this Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Ordinance; and (X) A certification that the site described in the application is located on an existing antenna support structure and the owner/operator agrees to the location or co-location of the subject wireless communications facility. b) An application for a wireless communications permit to locate or re-locate a wireless communications facility that proposes to co-locate said facility on an antenna support structure and that satisfies the requirements set forth in this Section, shall receive expedited treatment in the review process. c) So as to further expedite the permitting process and to promote the efficient use of existing sites, the City encourages the users of antenna support structures to submit a single application for approval of multiple users on a single existing site. Applications for approval at multiple user sites shall be given priority in the review process. The fee to be submitted with a multiple user application shall be the fee described in this Section multiplied by the number of users listed in such application. 13 d) An applicant must submit a proposed stealth design for camouflaging its wireless communications facility, unless this requirement is preempted by the operation of applicable laws or regulations. e) A petitioner shall submit any additional information requested by the City for purposes of evaluating the permit request. In granting or denying a wireless communications permit to locate or re-locate a wireless communications facility on an antenna support structure, the Zoning Administrator shall prepare a written record of decision including findings of fact. 11 ) Utility Pole-Mounted Wireless Communications Facilities. a) Utility polesmounted wireless communications facilities may be permitted as accessory uses in all zoning districts if the provider uses pico cell equipment. Such facilities shall only be permitted in public fights-of-way that are at least 100 feet in width. To the greatest practical extent, utility pole-mounted wireless communications facilities shall be sited where they are concealed from public view by other objects such as trees or buildings. When it is necessary to site such a facility in public view, to the greatest practical extent it shall be designed to limit visual impact on surrounding land uses, which design must be approved by the City. b) The height of a utility pole-mounted facility shall not exceed two (2) feet above the pole structure. c) Equipment cabinets associated with utility pole-mounted wireless communications facilities which are located within the public right-of-way shall be of a scale and design that make them no more visually obtrusive than other types of utility equipment boxes normally located within the right-of-way and shall be located in a manner and location approved by the City. To the greatest practical extent, equipment cabinets associated with utility pole-mounted facilities which are located outside of the public fight-of-way shall be concealed from public view or shall be architecturally designed using stealth technology or buffered to be compatible with surrounding land uses, except that such shelters located in residential zoning districts must be screened from the view of residents and pedestrians. d) Equipment cabinets associated with utility pole-mounted wireless communications facilities which are located outside the public right-of-way shall meet the setback requirements for accessory buildings and structures for the zoning district in which the equipment cabinet is located. e) Generators associated with equipment shelters must meet with the requirements of the City Code. 14 12) Application for Utility Pole-Mounted Wireless Communications Facility. a) An application for a wireless communications permit to locate or re-locate a utility pole-mounted wireless communications facility must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator on the designated form and shall, at a minimum, contain the following: (i) Name, address and telephone number of the applicant; (ii) Location of the utility pole-mount, along with the property owner's name and telephone number; (iii) Number of applicant's wireless communications facilities to be located on the subject property; (iv) A sworn and certified statement in writing by a qualified engineer that the wireless communications facility will conform to any and all requirements and standards set forth in the City Code, and federal and state law; (v) An application fee in the amount set by the Council for each wireless communications facility listed on the application; (vi) A copy of all licenses and/or franchises required by federal, state or local law for the construction and/or operation of a wireless communications system in the City; (vii) A scaled site plan clearly indicating the location, type and height of the proposed wireless communications facility, on-site land uses and zoning, elevation and stealth design drawings of the proposed wireless communications facility and utility pole-mount, topography, a current survey, landscape plans, and any other information deemed by the City to be necessary to assess compliance with this Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Ordinance; (viii) An inventory of the applicant's existing towers and wireless communications facilities, if any, that are either within the jurisdiction of the City or within one mile of the City limits, including specific information about the location, height, and design of each wireless communications facility or tower; (ix) A certification that the applicant will comply with all applicable federal, state or local laws including all the provisions of this Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Ordinance; and 15 (X) A certification that the site described in the application is located on a utility pole-mount and the owner/operator agrees to the location of the wireless communications facility. b) An application for a wireless communications permit to locate or re-locate a wireless communications facility that proposes to co-locate said facility on an already existing utility pole-mount and that satisfies the requirements set forth in this Section, shall receive expedited treatment in the review process. c) A petitioner shall submit any additional information requested by the City for purposes of evaluating the permit request. d) In granting or denying a wireless communications permit to locate or re-locate a utility pole-mounted wireless communications facility, the Zoning Administrator shall prepare a written record of decision including findings of fact. Construction of New Towers. (a) Conditions of Approval for Wireless Communications Towers. (i) Setback. The distance between the base of any proposed wireless communications tower, measured from the center of a tower, and the nearest lot line shall be at least equal to the height of the tower, provided that this distance may be reduced to a specified amount if an applicant provides a certification from the tower manufacturer or a qualified engineer stating that the tower is designed and constructed in such a way as to crumple, bend, collapse or otherwise fall within the specified distance. In no event shall the distance between the base of a proposed wireless communications tower, measured from the center of the tower, and the nearest lot line be less than twenty (20) percent of the tower height. (ii) Structural requirements. All wireless communications tower designs must be certified by a qualified engineer specializing in tower structures and licensed to practice in the State of Minnesota. The certification must state the tower design is structurally sound and, at a minimum, in conformance with the City's Building Code, the State Building Code, and any other standards outlined in the Land Use and Development Ordinance, as mended from time to time. (iii) Height. The height of permitted wireless communications towers shall be as specified in subsection 5 of this Section. 16 b) Requirements for Separation Between Towers. c) (i) Except for wireless communications facilities located on roof-tops or utility pole-mounted facilities, the minimum wireless communications tower separation distance shall be calculated and applied irrespective of jurisdictional boundaries. (ii) Measurement of wireless communications tower separation distances for the purpose of compliance with this Section shall be measured from the base of a wireless communications tower to the base of the existing or approved wireless communications tower. (iii) Proposed towers must meet the following minimum separation requirements from existing towers or towers previously approved but not yet constructed at the time a development permit is granted pursuant to this Section: MINIMUM TOWER SEPARATION DISTANCE Height of Height of Minimum Existing Tower Proposed Tower Separation Less than 50' Less than 50' 100' " 50'-100' 200' " 101'-150' 400' " 151'-200' 800' 50'-100' Less than 50' 100' " 50'-100' 400' " 101'-150' 600' " 151'-200' 800' 101'-150' Less than 50' 100' " 50'-100' 400' " 101'-150' 600' " 151'-200' 800' 151'-200' Lessthan S0' 100' " 50'-100' 600' " 101'-150' 800' " 151'-200' 1000' For the purpose of this subsection, the separation distances shall be measured by drawing or following a straight line between the center of the base of the existing or approved structure and the center of the proposed base, pursuant to a site plan of the proposed wireless communications tower. Standards for Co-location. This subsection is designed to foster shared use of wireless communications towers. (i) Construction of Excess Capacity. Any owner of a wireless communications tower shall permit other providers to install or co-locate antennae or wireless communications facilities on such towers, if available 17 d) (ii) (iii) (iv) (V) Tower 6) (ii) space and structural capacity exists; provided, however, that no wireless communications tower shall be used to support wireless communications facilities for more than three separate providers. Any co-location of wireless communications facilities shall be subject to mutually agreeable terms and conditions negotiated between the parties. All new wireless communications towers shall be constructed with excess capacity for co- location as follows: Less than 80 feet in height 80 feet to 119 feet in height 120 feet in height or greater One additional user Two or more additional users (up to a maximum of three users) Three additional users Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, all new monopole towers over 80 feet in height and existing monopole towers that are extended to a height over 80 feet shall be designed and built to accommodate at least two providers, and up to a maximum of three providers if technically possible. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, all new guyed towers, and existing guyed towers that are replaced or modified shall be designed and built to accommodate three providers. Site area. The site or leased footprint shall contain sufficient square footage to accommodate the equipment/mechanical facilities for all proposed providers based upon the structural capacity of the tower. Setbacks. If it is determined that a proposed wireless communications tower cannot meet setback requirements due to increases in tower height to accommodate the co-location of at least one additional wireless communications service prorider, minimum setback requirements may be reduced by a maximum of fifteen (15) feet, unless such a reduction would decrease the distance between the base of the tower and the nearest lot line to less than twenty (20) percent of the tower height, in which case set-back requirements may be reduced to a distance that is equal to or greater than twenty (20) percent of the tower height. Design and Type. All proposed wireless communications towers shall be monopole towers or stealth towers. Self-supporting towers or guyed lattice towers shall only be permitted as a replacement of like structures. Utility pole-mounted facilities or extensions on utility poles to accommodate the mounting of wireless communications facilities shall be of the monopole type. 18 (iii) Antennas shall be of the uni-cell variety whenever feasible or mounted internal to the wireless communications tower structure. (iv) Stealth wireless communications towers, equipment cabinets and related facilities shall be required in all zoning districts. e) Landscaping Minimum Requirements. Wireless communications towers shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant materials that effectively screens the view of the tower compound from surrounding property. The standard buffer shall consist of a landscaped strip at least ten (10) feet wide outside the perimeter of the compound. Existing mature growth and natural land forms on the site shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. In some cases, such as wireless communications towers sited on large, wooded lots, natural growth around the property perimeter may be a sufficient buffer. All areas disturbed during project construction shall be replanted with vegetation. The owner of a wireless communications tower is responsible for all landscaping obligations and costs. A landscaping plan for the purpose of screening the base of the tower from view shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for the tower. The City may waive the enforcement of this condition if it is deemed unnecessary. Visual Impact Standards. To assess the compatibility with and impact on adjacent properties of a proposed wireless communications tower site, an applicant seeking to construct, relocate or modify a wireless communications tower may be required to submit a visual impact analysis. The requirements of this subsection shall be required for any application to construct a tower greater than 80 feet in height. The applicant may request a review of a proposed wireless communications tower location, prior to submission of an application, to determine whether or not a visual impact analysis will be required. The applicant shall be advised of the requirement to submit a visual impact analysis by the City within ten (10) working days following the City's receipt of the applicant's application for construction of a new wireless communication tower or the relocation or modification of an existing tower. (i) Whenever a visual impact analysis is required, an applicant shall utilize digital imaging technology to prepare the analysis in a manner acceptable to the City. At a minimum, a visual impact analysis must provide the following information: a, The location of the proposed wireless communications tower illustrated upon an aerial photograph at a scale of not more than one inch equals 300 feet (1" = 300'). All adjacent zoning districts within a 3,000 foot radius from all property lines of the proposed wireless communications tower site shall be indicated; and 19 (ii) (iii) b, A line of site analysis which shall include the following information: certification that the proposed wireless communications tower meets or exceeds standards contained in this Section; identification of all significant existing natural and manmade features adjacent to the proposed wireless communications tower site and identification of features which may provide buffering and screening for adjacent properties and public rights-of-way; identification of at least three specific points within a 2,000 foot radius of the proposed wireless communications tower location, subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator, for conducting the visual impact analysis; copies of all calculations and a description of the methodology used in selecting the points of view and collection of data submitted in the analysis; graphic illustration of the visual impact of the proposed wireless communications tower, at a scale that does not exceed 5 degrees of horizontal distance, presented from the specific identified points; identification of all screening and buffering materials under the permanent control of the applicant (only screening and buffering materials located within the boundaries of the proposed site shall be considered for the visual impact analysis); and identification of all screening and buffering materials that are not under the permanent control of the applicant but are considered of a permanent nature due to ownership or use pattems, such as a public park, vegetation preserve, required development buffer, etc. Screening and buffering materials considered in the visual impact analysis shall not be removed by future development on the site. However, screening and buffering materials considered in the visual impact analysis shall be replaced if they die. An applicant shall provide any additional information that may be required by the Zoning Administrator to fully review and evaluate the potential impact of the proposed wireless communications tower. 2O 14) Application Process for New Towers. a) The use of existing structures to locate wireless communications facilities shall be preferred to the construction of new wireless communications towers. To be eligible to construct a new wireless communications tower within City limits, an applicant must establish to the satisfaction of the City that the applicant is unable to provide the service sought by the applicant from available sites, including co- locations within the City and in neighboring jurisdictions; and the applicant must demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the City that no other suitable existing tower or antenna support structure is available, including utility poles; and that no reasonable altemative technology exists that can accommodate the applicant's wireless communications facility due to one or more of the following factors: (i) The structure provides insufficient height to allow the applicant's facility to function reasonably in parity with similar facilities; (ii) The structure provides insufficient structural strength to support the applicant's wireless communications facility; (iii) The structure provides insufficient space to allow the applicant's wireless communications facility to function effectively and reasonably in parity with similar equipment; (iv) Use of the existing structure would result in electromagnetic interference that cannot reasonably be corrected; (v) The existing structure is unavailable for lease under a reasonable leasing agreement; (vi) Use of the structure would create a greater visual impact on surrounding land uses than the proposed altemative or otherwise would be less in keeping with the goals, objectives, intent, preferences, purposes, criteria or standards of this Ordinance, the Land Use and Development Ordinance and land development regulations; and/or (vii) Other limiting factors. b) An applicant must submit any technical information requested by the City or its designated engineering consultant as part of the review and evaluation process. c) An application for a wireless communications permit to construct a wireless communications tower must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator on the designated form and shall contain, at a minimum, the following information: 21 (i) Name, address and telephone number of the applicant; (ii) Proposed location of the wireless communications tower, along with all studies, maps and other information required by subsections 13 and 14 of this Section (applicant shall submit information for only one proposed tower per application); (iii) Number of applicant's wireless communications facilities to be located on the subject tower and the number of spaces available for co-location; (iv) A sworn and certified statement in writing by a qualified engineer that the wireless communications tower will conform to all requirements set forth in the City Code, and federal and state law; (v) An application fee in the amount set by the Council; (vi) A copy of all licenses and/or franchises required by federal, state or local law for the construction and/or operation of a wireless communications system in the City; (vii) A scaled site plan clearly indicating the location, type and height of the proposed wireless communications tower, on-site land uses and zoning, elevation and stealth design drawings of the proposed tower, topography, and any other information deemed by the Zoning Administrator to be necessary to assess compliance with this Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Ordinance; (viii) An inventory of the applicant's existing towers and wireless communications facilities, if any, that are either within the jurisdiction of the City or within one mile of the City limits, including specific information about the location, height, and design of each wireless communications facility or tower; (ix) The names, addresses and telephone numbers of all owners of existing towers or antenna support structures within an area equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the search ring for the wireless communications facility proposed to be located on the proposed new tower; (X) Written documentation in the form of an affidavit that the applicant made diligent, but unsuccessful efforts for permission to install or co-locate the proposed wireless communications facility on all existing towers or antenna support structures located within an area equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the search ring for the proposed site of the wireless communications facility; 22 d) e) (xi) Written, technical evidence from a qualified engineer that the proposed wireless communications facility cannot be installed or co-located on an existing tower or antenna support structure located within the City and must be located at the proposed site in order to meet the coverage requirements of the proposed wireless communications service, together with a composite propagation study which illustrates graphically existing and proposed coverage in industry-accepted median received signal ranges; (xii) A written statement from a qualified engineer that the construction and placement of the proposed wireless communications tower will comply with Federal Communications Commission radiation standards for interference and safety and will produce no significant signal interference with public safety communications and the usual and customary transmission or reception of radio, television, or other communications services enjoyed by adjacent residential and non-residential properties; and (xiii) A certification that the applicant will comply with all applicable federal, state or local laws including all the provisions of this Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Ordinance. A proposed wireless communications tower that exceeds the height limitations for a permitted tower in the GB, RB, CBD, I-1 or I-2 zoning districts, or any proposed wireless communications tower under eighty (80) feet in the R-l, R-2, R-3, Ro4, or LB districts, shall only be allowed upon approval of a conditional use pennit. The City Council may establish any reasonable conditions for approval that are deemed necessary to mitigate adverse impacts associated with the conditional use, to protect neighboring properties, and to achieve the objectives of this Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Ordinance. Such a conditional use permit shall be required in addition to a wireless communications permit. In granting or denying a wireless communications permit to construct a wireless communications tower, the Zoning Administrator shall prepare a written record of decision including findings of fact. Proposed wireless communication towers that meet the standards and requirements contained herein, including location and height limitations, may be approved administratively by the Zoning Administrator. Proposed wireless communication towers that do not meet the standards and requirements contained herein, including location and height limitations, may be denied administratively by the Zoning Administrator, provided that the written record of decision including findings of fact is accepted by the Council. 23 15) Annual Registration Requirement. a) Wireless Communications Facilities. To enable the City to keep accurate, up- to-date records of the location of wireless communications facilities within City limits, on an annual basis, no later than February 1 of each year, or upon change in ownership of wireless communications facilities, the owner/operator of such facilities shall submit documentation to the Zoning Administrator providing: (i) Certification in writing that the wireless communications facility conforms to the requirements, in effect at the time of construction of the facility, of the State Building Code and all other requirements and standards set forth in the City Code, and federal and state law by filing a swom and certified statement by a qualified engineer to that effect. A wireless communications facility owner/operator may be required by the City to submit more frequent certification should there be reason to believe that the structural and/or electrical integrity of the wireless communications facility is jeopardized. The City reserves the right upon reasonable notice to the owner/operator of the wireless communications facility to conduct inspections for the purpose of determining whether the wireless communications facility complies with the State Building Code and all requirements and standards set forth in local, state or federal laws; and (ii) The name, address and telephone number of any new owner, if there has been a change of ownership of the wireless communications facility. Annual payment of a registration fee, as set by the Council, for each wireless communications facility located within the City shall be submitted to the City at the time of submission of the documentation required above. b) Wireless Communications Towers. To enable the City to keep accurate, up-to- date records of the location and continued use of wireless communications towers within City limits, on an annual basis, no later than February 1 of each year, or upon change in ownership of a wireless communications tower, the owner/operator of each tower shall submit documentation to the Zoning Administrator providing: (i) Certification in writing that the wireless communications tower is stmcturally sound and conforms to the requirements, in effect at the time of construction of the tower, of the State Building Code and all applicable standards and requirements set forth in the City Code, and federal and state law, by filing a swom and certified statement by a qualified engineer to that effect. The tower owner may be required by City to submit more frequent certifications should there be reason to believe that the structural and/or electrical integrity of the tower is jeopardized; 24 (ii) The number of providers located on the tower and their names, addresses and telephone numbers; (iii) The type and use of any wireless communications facilities located on the tower; and (iv) The name, address and telephone number of any new owner of the tower, if there has been a change of ownership of the tower. An annual payment of a registration fee, as set by the Council, for each tower located within the City shall be submitted to the City at the time of submission of the documentation required above. General Requirements. The following conditions apply to all wireless communications towers and wireless communications facilities in the City: Duration of Permits. If substantial construction or installation has not taken place within one year after City approval of a wireless communications permit, the approval shall be considered void unless a petition for time extension has been granted by the City Council. Such a petition shall be submitted in writing at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the approval and shall state facts showing a good faith effort to complete the work permitted under the original permit. b) Assignment and Subleasing. No wireless communications facility, tower or antenna support structure or wireless communications permit may be sold, transferred or assigned without prior notification to the City. No sublease shall be entered into by any prorider until the sublessee has obtained a pen-nit for the subject wireless communications facility or tower or antenna support structure. No potential prorider shall be allowed to argue that a permit should be issued for an assigned or subleased wireless communications facility or tower or antenna support structure on the basis of any expense incurred in relation to the facility or site. c) Aesthetics. Wireless communications towers and wireless communications facilities shall meet the following requirements: (i) Signs. No commercial signs or advertising shall be allowed on a wireless communications tower or a wireless communications facility. (ii) Lighting. No signals, lights, or illumination shall be permitted on a wireless communications tower or a wireless communications facility, unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other applicable authority. If lighting is required, the lighting altematives and design chosen must cause the least obtrusiveness to the surrounding community. However, an applicant shall obtain approval from the City if the Federal Aviation Administration requires the addition of standard obstruction 25 d) e) g) marking and lighting (i.e., red lighting and orange and white striping) to the tower. An applicant shall notify the Zoning Administrator prior to making any changes to the original finish of the tower. (iii) Graffiti. Any graffiti or other unauthorized inscribed materials shall be removed promptly or otherwise covered in a manner substantially similar to, and consistent, with the original exterior finish. The City may provide a wireless communications tower or equipment cabinet owner and/or operator written notice to remove or cover graffiti within a specific period of time or as required by other appropriate sections of the City Code as presently existing or as may be periodically amended. In the event the graffiti has not been removed or painted over by the owner and/or operator within the specified time period, the City shall have the right to remove or paint over the graffiti or other inscribed materials. In the event the City has to remove or paint over the graffiti, then the owner and/or operator of the wireless communications tower or equipment cabinet or structure on which the graffiti existed, shall be responsible for all costs incurred. Federal and State Requirements. All wireless communications towers and wireless communications facilities must meet or exceed the standards and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and any other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate wireless communications towers and facilities. If such standards and regulations change, then the owners of the wireless communications towers and wireless communications facilities subject to such standards and regulations must bring such towers and facilities into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within six (6) months of the effective date of such standards and regulations, unless a different compliance schedule is mandated by the controlling state or federal agency. Failure to maintain or bring wireless communications towers and wireless communications facilities into compliance with such revised standards and regulations shall constitute a violation of this Ordinance and shall be subject to enforcement under the City Code. Penalties for violation may include fines and removal of the tower or wireless communications facility at the owner's expense. Licenses or Franchise. An owner of a wireless communications tower or wireless communications facility must notify the City in writing within 48 hours of any revocation or failure to renew any necessary license or franchise. Discontinued Use. In the event the use of a wireless communications tower or wireless communications facility is discontinued, the owner and/or operator shall provide written notice to the City of its intent to discontinue use and the date when the use shall be discontinued. Abandoned Tower or Antenna. The City may require removal of any abandoned or unused wireless communications tower or wireless communications 26 facility by the tower or facility owner within thirty (30) days after notice from the City of abandonment. A wireless communications tower or wireless communications facility shall be considered abandoned if use has been discontinued for one hundred eighty (180) consecutive days. (i) Removal by City. Where a wireless communications tower or wireless communications facility is abandoned but not removed within the specified time frame, the City may remove the facility or remove or demolish the tower and place a lien on the property following the procedures (but not the criteria) for demolition of an unsafe building/structure of the City's housing code. (ii) Towers Utilized for Other Purposes. Where a wireless communications tower is utilized for other purposes, including but not limited to light standards and power poles, it shall not be considered abandoned; provided, however, that the height of the tower may be reduced by the City so that the tower is no higher than necessary to accommodate previously established uses. (iii) Restoration of Area. Where a wireless communications tower or facility is removed by an owner, said owner, at no expense to the City, shall restore the area to as good a condition as prior to the placement of the tower or facility, unless otherwise instructed by the City. (iv) Surety or Letter of Credit for Removal. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a surety or letter of credit shall be submitted by the property owner(s) or tower operator(s) to ensure the removal of abandoned wireless communications towers. The surety or letter of credit shall be utilized to cover the cost of removal and disposal of abandoned towers and shall consist of the following: a. submission of an estimate from a certified structural engineer indicating the cost to remove and dispose of the tower; and either a surety or a letter of credit, equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated cost to remove and dispose of the tower. The form of the surety or the letter of credit shall be subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator and the City Attorney. h) FCC Emissions Standards. At all times, owners and/or operators of wireless communications facilities shall comply with the radio frequency emissions standards of the Federal Communications Commission. (i) Testing required. All existing and future wireless communications facilities shall be tested in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Such testing, to the extent it is required, shall comply with 27 standards and procedures prescribed by the Federal Communications Commission. (ii) Inspections. The City reserves the right to conduct random radio frequency emissions inspections. The cost for such random inspections shall be paid from the wireless communications annual registration fees, unless an owner and/or operator is found to be in non-compliance with Federal Communications Commission RF emissions standards, whereupon the non-compliant owner and/or operator shall reimburse the City in full for. the cost of the inspection. i) Maintenance. All wireless communications facilities, wireless communications towers and antenna support structures shall at all times be kept and maintained in good condition, order, and repair, and, maintained in stealth condition (if stealth or camouflage is a permit requirement). The same shall not menace or endanger the life or property of any person, and shall retain original characteristics. All maintenance or construction on a wireless communications tower, wireless communications facility or antenna support structure shall be performed by licensed maintenance and construction personnel. The City shall notify a provider in writing regarding any specific maintenance required under this Section. A provider shall make all necessary repairs within thirty (30) days of such notification. Failure to effect noticed repairs within thirty (30) days may result in revocation of a tower owner's or provider's permit and/or removal of the tower, wireless communications facility or antenna support structure. j) Emergency. The City reserves the right to enter upon and disconnect, dismantle or otherwise remove any wireless communications tower or wireless communications facility should the same become an immediate hazard to the safety of persons or property due to emergency circumstances, as determined by the Zoning Administrator or his designee, such as natural or manmade disasters or accidents, when the owner of any such tower or facility is not available to immediately remedy the hazard. The City shall notify any said owner of any such action within twenty-four (24) hours. The owner and/or operator shall reimburse the City for the costs incurred by the City for action taken pursuant to this subsection. k) Equipment Cabinets. Equipment cabinets located on the ground shall be constructed out of non-reflective materials and shall be screened from sight by mature landscaping and located or designed to minimize their visibility. All equipment cabinets shall be no taller than ten (10) feet in height, measured from the original grade at the base of the facility to the top of the structure, and occupy no more than four hundred (400) square feet in area, unless a waiver is granted by the City upon written request from a provider. 1) Equipment On Site. No mobile or immobile equipment or materials of any nature shall be stored or parked on the site o~' a wireless communications tower or 28 17) m) n) wireless communications facility, unless used in direct support of a wireless communications tower or wireless communications facility or for repairs to the wireless communications tower or wireless communications facility currently underway. Inspections. The City reserves the right upon reasonable notice to the owner/operator of a wireless communications tower or antenna support structure, including utility poles and rooftops, to conduct inspections for the purpose of determining whether the tower or other support structure and/or related equipment cabinet complies with the State Building Code and all applicable requirements and standards set forth in local, state or federal law and to conduct radiation measurements to determine whether all antenna and transmitting equipment are operating within Federal Communications Commission requirements. Security. (i) An owner/operator of a wireless communications tower shall provide a security fence or equally effective barrier around the tower base or along the perimeter of the wireless communications tower compound. (ii) If high voltage is necessary for the operation of the wireless communications tower or antenna support structure, "HIGH VOLTAGE - DANGER" warnings signs shall be permanently attached to the fence or barrier and shall be spaced no more than 20 feet apart, or on each fence or barrier frontage. (iii) "NO TRESPASSING" warning signs shall be permanently attached to the fence or barrier and shall be spaced no more than 20 feet apart. (iv) The letters for the "HIGH VOLTAGE DANGER" and "NO TRESPASSING" waming signs shall be at least six (6) inches in height.' The two warning signs may be combined into one sign. The waming signs shall be installed at least 4.5 feet above the finished grade of the fence or barrier. o) Advances in Technology. All providers shall use and apply any readily available advances in technology that lessen the negative aesthetic effects of wireless communications facilities and wireless communications towers to the residential communities within the City. Every five (5) years, the City may review existing structures and compare the visual impact with available technologies in the industry for the purpose of removal, relocation or alteration of these structures in keeping with the general intent of this Section. Such removal, relocation or alteration may be required by the City pursuant to its zoning power and authority. Review of Applications. The City shall process all applications for wireless communications towers and wireless communications facilities ;n a timely manner and in 29 accordance with established procedures. The reason for the denial of any application filed in accordance with this provision shall be set forth in writing, and shall be supported by substantial evidence in a written record. Appeals. At any time within 30 days after a written order, requirement, determination or final decision has been made by the Zoning Administrator or other official in interpreting or applying this Section, except for actions taken in connection with prosecutions for violations thereof, the applicant or any other person affected by such action may appeal the decision in accordance with the provisions of the Land Use and Development Ordinance. Revocation. A material breach of any terms and conditions of a permit issued for a wireless communications tower or wireless communications facility under this Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Ordinance may result in the revocation by the City of the right to operate, utilize or maintain the particular tower or wireless communications facility within the City following written notification of the violation to the owner or operator, and after failure to cure or otherwise correct said violation within thirty (30) days. A violation of this Section shall be subject to enforcement in accordance with the Land Use and Development Ordinance. Penalties for a violation of a permit or this Section may include fines and removal of the wireless communications tower or wireless communications facility at the owner's expense." Section 3. CAPTIONS. The captions throughout this Ordinance are intended solely to facilitate reading and reference to the sections and provisions of this Ordinance. Such captions shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Ordinance. Section4. CALCULATION OF TIME. Unless otherwise indicated, when the performance or doing of any act, duty, matter or payment is required under this Ordinance, and a period of time or duration for the fulfillment of doing thereof is prescribed and is fixed herein, the time shall be computed so as to exclude the first and include the last day of the prescribed or fixed period of duration time. Section 5. SEVERABILITY. If any term, condition or provision of this Ordinance shall, to any extent, be held to be invalid or unenforceable by a valid order of any court or regulatory agency, the remainder hereof shall be valid in all other respects and continue to be effective. In the event of a subsequent change in applicable law such that the provision which had been held invalid is no longer invalid, such provision shall thereupon retum to full force and effect without further action by the City of Columbia Heights and shall thereafter be binding on the permittee and the City. Section 6. REPEAL OF LAWS IN CONFLICT. All City laws and ordinances in conflict with any provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of any conflict. Section 7. INCLUSION IN THE CITY CODE. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the City Code of the City of Columbia Heights. The sections of 3O this Ordinance may renumbered or relettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section, .... article," or any other appropriate word. Section 8. NO RECOURSE AGAINST THE CITY. Every permit shall provide that, without limiting such immunities as the City or other persons may have under applicable law, a permittee shall have no monetary recourse whatsoever against the City or its elected officials, boards, commissions, agents, employees or volunteers for any loss, costs, expense or damage arising out of any provision or requirement of this Ordinance or because of the enforcement of this Ordinance or the City's exercise of its authority pursuant to this Ordinance, a permit, or other applicable law, unless the same shall be caused by criminal acts or by willful gross negligence. Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of sovereign immunity. Section 9. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after its passage. First Reading: Second Reading: Date of Passage: November 13, and November 27, 2000 December 11, 2000 December 11, 2000 Offered by: Szurek Second by: Jolly Roll Call: All ayes ~/atricia Muscovitz, Deputy lerk ' ~ayor Gary , Peterson 31 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: December 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: NO: ITEM: January 2001 Work Session Date NO: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER BY Walt Fehst DATE: December 20, 2000 CITY MANAGERS APPROVAL DATE: Work Sessions dates: As Monday, January 15,is a holiday and City offrues are closed, it is recommended that a Work Session be scheduled for: 1. Wednesday, January 17, 2001 beginning at 7:00 p.m. Also, as staff has no items for the January 2, 2001 work session meeting, the meeting will be cancelled. RECOMMENDED MOTION: MOTION: Move to establish a Work Session meeting date of Wednesday, January I 't, 2001 beginning at 7:00 p.m., and to cancel the Work Session meeting date of Tuesday, January 2, 2001 COUNCIL ACTION: h:X2000-12~27wonksession dates CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: December 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: Consent NO: ITEM: Establish John P. Murzyn Hall rental rates for 2002, and Revise John P. Murzyn Hall Management Plan discount policy NO: ORIGINATING DEPT. Recreation Keith Windschitl BY: Recreation Director/~ DATE: 12/20/00 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL BACKGROUND At the Columbia Heights Park and Recreation Commission's December 13, 2000 meeting, the commission unanimously approved a 5% increase for the 2002 Murzyn Hall rental rates. Additionally, the Commission unanimously approved a revision of the JPM Management Plan discount policy for rentals. The Park and Recreation Committee members voted to remove the 75% discount from the rental policy and to only allow one discount per rental. Currently, renters may receive 75% discount if their rental is one hour or less. The Park and Recreation Commission felt this discount should be eliminated from the policy. Renters will have the option of any of the following discounts: 35% (resident discount), 25% (events lasting four hours or less), and 50% (events lasting two hours or less). Motion by Ruettimann, second by Foss to approve the 5% increase for 2002 and to change the rental policy, eliminating the 75% discount and also eliminating any renter from receiving more than one discount per rental beginning with any new rentals effective January 2001. All ayes, motion carried. The Park and Recreation Commission feels this will generate additional revenue for Murzyn Hall. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt the 2002 Murzyn Hall rental rates and revisions to the JPM Management Plan regarding the discount policy as outlined by the Park and Recreation Commission at their meeting of December 13, 2000. COUNCIL ACTION: ADMINXCC02RATE John P. Murzyn Hall Rental Rates Rentals in 2001 will pay the 2001 rate, and rentals in 2002 will pay the 2002 rate. Rental Rates Main Hall/Kitchen/LaBelle Lounge Main Hall Kitchen LaBelle Lounge Gauvitte Room Prestemon Room Edgemoor Room Keyes Room Youth Room Mathaire Room McKenna Room Mathaire/McKenna Room Senior Room Ostrander Room Senior/Ostrander Room 2001 (Sun-Fri) 2001 (Sat) 2002 (Sun-Fri) 200~(Sat) $780.00 $820.00 $820.00 $860.00 550.00 580.00 580.00 610.00 95.00 100.00 100.00 105.00 160.00 170.00 170.00 180.00 135.00 145.00 145.00 150.00 135.00 145.00 145.00 150.00 135.00 145.00 145.00 150.00 135.00 145.00 145.00 150.00 135.00 145.00 145.00 150.00 135.00 145.00 145.00 150.00 135.00 145.00 145.00 150.00 200.00 210.00 210.00 220.00 135.00 145.00 145.00 150.00 135.00 145.00 145.00 150.00 200.00 210.00 210.00 220.00 Other Fees Damage deposit Secudty deposit CSO Houdy Charge Pre-Mix deposit Pre-Mix canister Early entry per hour* Custodial charge per hour CO2 system usage fee** 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 19.50 19.50 19.50 19.50 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 21.00 21.00 21.00 21.00 60.00 60,00 60.00 60.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 Discounts Events lasting 2 hours or less Events lasting 4 hours or less Columbia Heights discount*** 50% 50% 50% 50% 25% 25% 25% 25% 35% 35% 35% 35% Fquil;)ment Available Audio/visual equipment rental per day. (TVNCR, slide projector, overhead projector, screen, PA system. PA system included at no additional cost for Main Hall rentals.) * Subject to approval by Recreation Director and/or Park & Recreation Comm. ** For use of CO2 system to tap kegs of beer. Fee waived if renter purchases pre-mix from the City or if the Lion's Club provides bartending services. ***35% discount is exclusively limited to the renter or their parents, providing one is a Columbia Heights resident. CITY COUNCIL LETTER MEETING OF: DECEMBER 27, 2000 AGENDASECTION: CONSENT NO: 4 ITEM: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SENIOR CITIZENS OR RETIRED & DISABLED PERSONS HARDSHIP SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERRAL NO: ORIGINATING DEPT.: ASSESSING BY: JANE GLEASON DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2000 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL In 1982, the City Council adopted a resolution allowing the deferral of assessments for senior citizens and disabled persons. The resolution established eligibility criteria including a maximum income. The income level is updated annually by resolution. The attached resolution retains the criteria in the previous resolution and updates the income eligibility amount to $1 7,900, the same dollar amount used for reduced rates for senior citizens utility bills. The current income eligibility amount is $17,700. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of the Resolution, there being ample copies available to the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2000~100 establishing a new maximum income of $17,900 for senior or retired and disabled persons to be eligible for special assessment deferral. COUNCIL ACTION: jg\files\SR Defer res & C0U LTR RESOLUTION NO. 2000 - 100 BEING A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SENIOR CITIZENS OR RETIRED AND DISABLED PERSONS HARDSHIP SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERRAL Whereas, immediate payment of special assessments or installments on special assessments cast an undue hardship on some persons owning homestead properties who are 65 years of age or older or retired by virtue of a permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make payments, and Whereas, Minnesota Statutes ej435.193 - 435.195 makes it possible for a home rule charter city to pass a resolution establishing standards and guidelines for determining the existence of a hardship and for determining the existence of a disability. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS: 1. This deferral procedure shall apply only to assessments which are payable in five or more annual installments. 2. This deferral procedure shall apply only to property owned and occupied by the elderly, retired, or disabled applicant. Ownership and occupancy must be of the same nature as would qualify the applicant for a homestead exemption for tax purposes. 3. This deferral procedure shall apply only to homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older or retired by virtue of a permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make payments, Permanent and total disability shall have the same definition for purposes of assessment deferral as is used for social security purposes. 4. This deferral procedure shall not be construed as to prohibit the determination of hardship on the basis of exceptional and unusual circumstances not covered by the standards and guidelines herein so long as determination is made in a nondiscriminatory manner and does not give the applicant an unreasonable preference or advantage over other applicants. 5. In order to obtain a deferral of an assessment, the homeowner must make application on the forms prescdbed by the City of Columbia Heights Assessment Clerk. 6. In granting a deferred assessment, the Council shall determine in its resolution approving the assessment roll the amount of interest, if any, to be charged on the deferred assessment. 7. The option of the homeowner to defer the payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest shall become due and payable upon the occurrence of any of the following events: a. the death of the owner, provided that the spouse is not otherwise eligible for benefits hereunder; b. the sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part thereof; c. if the property should for any reason lose its homestead status; or d. if for any reason the City shall determine that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. 8, No deferral may be granted unless the homeowner makes application to the City Assessment Clerk within thirty (30) days after adoption of the assessment by the Council. 9. The deferral shall apply to only 50% of the annual installment payment. If the 50% is not paid in a timely manner, the balance of the annual installment along with all future installments shall become immediately due and payable. 10. No deferral shall be granted to any owner who has a gross annual household income from all sources in excess of $17,900.00, 11. No deferral may be continued from year to year unless the owner shall file a renewal application before September 15th of each year. 12. No special assessment may be deferred for a period longer than the time set by the Council as the time over which the project is to be assessed. 13. Interest on deferred assessments shall be at the rate set by the Council in its resolution adopting the assessment roll, and such interest shall be added to the amount deferred and shall be paid in accordance with Minnesota Statute ej435.195 and this Resolution. this 27th day of December, 2000. by: Passed Offered Seconded by: Roll Call: Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk j~\files\SR Defez res & COU LTR CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: 12/26/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA NO: L~. A - 5' ITEM: REPLACEMENT OF UNIT #17, 1985 FORD C700 WATER FLUSH TRUCK ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS CITY MANAGER Background: Equipment unit #17 is a 1985 Ford C700 Cab-Over chassis equipped with a 1000-gallon water tank and various water flushing equipment. The chassis was purchased new in 1985 for $ 33,710, with a projected life of 15 years. The odometer reading is 45,000 miles with 6,213 hours of operation recorded since an hour meter was installed in 1992. The manual transmission is very difficult to shift and is no longer in production. The transmission linkage was poorly designed and has been replaced several times. The 2- speed differential needs to be replaced. Drive belts for the air compressor that supplies air to operate the flush controls are no longer available. The mechanics have rated the overall mechanical condition as fair to poor. The body condition is fair. The water tank interior is stainless steel with a steel exterior hull. The attached spraying system is adequate and could be reconditioned with minor valve and pipe replacements. The exterior steel hull is resting on the bottom supports and needs repair or replacement. Unit #17 is used by the Street Dept. during street sweeping operations to rinse the streets and control dust. It is used by the Park Dept. to flood skating rinks, water trees, sod, and ballfields. It is used by the Sewer and Water Dept. as an auxiliary water supply for sewer cleaning equipment. Analysis/Conclusions: The entire unit was scheduled for replacement in 2000 under the Capital Equipment Plan with an estimated cost of $ 110,000. Staff recommended to the City Council at their November 27tn, 2000 meeting to replace Unit #17 chassis and reconditioning the existing water tank and flushing system and received authorization to seek bids on a new cab over chassis. A vehicle spec sheet for a Cab Forward Chassis was prepared and staff received bids from three vendors as follows: · Iten Track Center (Isuzu) $48,349 · Boyer Tracks (Ste~ing) $49,715 · RDQ Track Center (Mack) $50,985 Staff has reviewed the detailed bids and Public Works is recommending purchase of the Sterling chassis. The Isuzu does not offer a two-speed rear axle, which was a spec requirement. Furthermore, our experience has been a longer delivery time for Isuzu parts. Existing unit # 17 chassis is proposed to be disposed of by auction. Recommended Motion: Move to authorize the purchase of one (1) new Cab-over Cargo Chassis from Boyer Tracks for a Sterling SC700 Cab over chassis in the amount of $49,715, plus tax and license. The cost would be appropriated from Capital Equipment Replacement Fund ~431-43121-5150. KH:jb COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of 12/26/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA NO: t~. ITEM: APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BRW FOR CENTRAL AVENUE STREET, UTILITY AND STREETSCAPING DESIGN ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS BY: K. Hansen DATE: 12/19/00 CITY MANAGER Background: The City Council previously awarded the final design services for Central Avenue Street and Utility Improvements to BRW at their February 28, 2000 regular meeting. The final design work, as identified in the Engineering Study, includes utilities: water main, sanitary sewer and storm sewer; and street reconstruction which includes center medians, concrete curb and gutter, pavement and sidewalks. The initial estimated cost of the work was $850,000 for utilities and $1,745,000 for street improvements. On October 9, 2000, the Council awarded the final design of streetscaping to BRW with an estimated cost of $760,000. Analysis/Conclusions: Design work is complete on the street and utility plans for the Central Avenue Street Rehabilitation project, from 37th to 45t~ Avenues, and has been submitted to MnDOT State-Aid for their review process. Staff met with the Council at their August 7m work session to discuss preliminary alternatives for urban streetscaping. A public informational meeting was held September 20th, 2000 at Murzyn Hall with all fronting properties along Central Avenue invited. From the direction and input of these two meetings, final design of streetscaping is nearing completion to be incorporated into the bidding documents approximately in February. Additional work tasks have been identified which are outside the scope of the original professional services agreement dated January 10, 2000 and amended September 14, 2000 for the inclusion of streetscape design. A outline of each work task and associated cost is provided below: 1. Extension of roadway work from 43'd to 45th Avenues (requested by MnDOT) 2. Utility trench pavement design (MnDOT permitting review) 3. Additional traffic control / construction staging (MnDOT traffic review) $16,000 4. Project funding / cost estimating (City staff requested) 5. Staff requested plan / coordination revisions (City staff requested) 6. Additional Public Involvement / meetings (City staff requested) Total Additional Services: $16,000 $17,500 $12,200 $13,400 ~000 $83,100 A copy of the proposal letter for the outlined contract amendments to BRW's design services is attached detailing the scope of work. The additional cost of $ 83,100 for a revised contract amount of $247,100 represents 6.88 percent of the current engineer's estimate of the improvement cost of $3,591,000. The additional work has resulted from either MnDOT preliminary reviews or staff requested changes or additions. Engineering design fees typically range in the area of 6-8 percent of the construction cost. Public Works staff is of the opinion that the additional work is necessary for the Central Avenue project and recommends approval of the change order in the amount of $83,100. Recommended Motion: Move to authorize Amendment No. 2 in the amount of $83,100 to BRW for Central Avenue Streetscaping from 37th to 45th Avenues as detailed in the attached proposal letter dated December 12, 2000 for a revised professional services agreement of $247,100; and, authorize the Mayor and City Manager to amend the agreement for the same. Attachment: BRW Proposal Letter dated December 12, 2000 COUNCIL ACTION: BRW, Inc. December 12, 2000 RECEIVED DEC Z 3 ZOO0 PUBLIC WORKS Mr. Kevin Hansen, PE Public Works Directoff City Engineer City of Columbia Heights 637 - 38th Avenue N.E. Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Proposal for Additional Final Design Services Central Avenue CII-I 65) Improvement Project City Project No. 99-12 Dear Mr. Hunsen: The following supplemental proposal is offered for your consideration for additional final design phase services for the above-referenced project. These additional services have been required for the completion of the project plans and specifications or have been specifically requested by City staff and are outside of the scope of work included in our January 10, 2000 proposal and our September 14, 2000 supplemental proposal for landscape design services. The scope of work and an estimated cost for these additional services are detailed below. We have also provided an updated schedule for the project. SCOPE OF WORK URSfBRW will provide additional final design phase services for the project as follows. 1. Extension of Project from 43rd Avenue to 45th Avenue The pro'ect originally included improvements to Central Avenue between 37th Avenue and 43~ Avenue. Mn/DOT requested that the project limits be extended to include a bituminous overlay between 43~a Avenue and 45th Avenue. URSfBRW will provide additional s~rvices to include the preparation of final plans .and specifications for the overlay construction. We will also coordinate with Mn/DOT to define the scope of the overlay work and negotiate with Mn/DOT to determine the additional funding that would be available for the additional work. Thresher Square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415 612.370.0700 Te! 612.370.1378 Fax BRW, Inc. Mr. Kevin Hansen December 12, 2000 Page 2 Utility Trench Pavement Design The Feasibility Study for the project included the patching of all utility trenches with a bituminous pavement section. The existing Central Avenue pavement section includes approximately 2" to 6" of bituminous pavement over 6" to 9" of concrete pavement. URS/BRW conducted discussions with Mn/DOT staff as a part of determining the final pavement section for the roadway. Mn/DOT requested that all utility trenches be patched in-kind with a bituminous overlay over new concrete pavement. We performed additional analysis and subcontracted with a geotechnical subconsultant (American Engineering Testing) to document that the bituminous pavement section option would perform satisfactorily; however, Mn/DOT still required the bituminous overlay/concrete pavement design. As a result of this decision by Mn/DOT, additional final design phase services are required to design the bituminous overlay and concrete pavement section. These additional services will include the preparation of concrete pavement jointing plans, details and specifications. This decision by Mn/DOT resulted in the addition of approximately $150,000 to the project construction costs. Additional Traffic Control/Staging Services URSaitRW has conducted discussions with the Mn/DOT Traffic Office regarding the traffic control and staging required for the project. It has been determined that the project must be constructed under traffic and that traffic signal operation and left turn lanes must be maintained at all intersections along Central Avenue. URS/BRW is preparing traffic control and staging plans to detail the traffic control required for the project. Additional services, including the preparation of plans and specifications detailing temporary signal operations at each intersection for each phase of the project, are required as a result of these discussions with Mn/DOT. Preparation of Funding/Financing Alternatives URS/BRW prepared detailed cost estimates as a part of our original scope of work for the project. In addition to this work, we have also provided services associated with the preparation of a financing plan for the project. URS/BRW has also prepared assessment options related to the urban design enhancements. This information was subsequently utilized to prepare the financing plan for the project. This work is outside of the scope of our original agreement and the supplemental agreement. BRW, Inc. Mr. Kevin Hansen December 12, 2000 Page 3 5. Staff Requested Additions to the Project Scope/Revisions to Plans Throughout the course of final design, URSfBRW has been requested to make adjustments to the final design. The requests resulted from review meetings with City staff. The revisions have included separation of storm sewer and sanitary sewer near 37th Avenue, grading revisions to the gutter line at 45th Avenue, watermain replacement at Gould Avenue, the installation of a frost-free hydrant, revisions to the design of Reservoir Boulevard, and revisions associated with business parking and access issues. Additional miscellaneous services will be required to coordinate meetings with the MTC and determine relocated bus stop locations. 6. Additional Public Involvement URS/BRW has provided preliminary design graphics/boards for presentation at an Open House meeting and at a City Council worksession. The graphics detailed the proposed urban design improvements and the proposed roadway layout and traffic control/staging plans. We will also provide additional public involvement services including preparation for and attendance at up to ten public or individual business owner meetings. The need for these additional meetings has been determined based upon the public involvement work performed to date. We have not included any additional services associated with coordination of the project with the City of Minneapolis. It is possible that the scope of the project may be modified to include the replacement of the existing signal at the 37th Avenue intersection and to extend the limits of the project to the south into the City of Minneapolis. We have not included these services at this time since it is uncertain if this work will be added to the project. We propose that a separate supplemental proposal be submitted for your consideration if this work is added to the project. ESTIMATED COSTS BRW will perform these additional services on an hourly basis consistent with our original proposal and our Professional Services Agreement. The following is a summary of the estimated costs to complete the work tasks detailed above. Current Not-to-Exceed Amount Additional Services 1. Extension of Project from 43rd Ave. to 45th Ave. $16,000.00 2. Utility Trench Pavement Design $17,500.00 3. Additional Traffic Control/Staging Services $16,000.00 4. Funding/Financing Alternatives $12,200.00 5. Staff Requested Additions/Revisions $13,400.00 $164,000.00 BRW, Inc. Mr. Kevin Hansen December 12, 2000 Page 4 6. Additional Public Involvement Total Additional Services Revised Not-to-Exceed Amount $ 8,000.00 $ 83,100.00 $247,100.00 The total revised not-to-exceed cost for the design phase cost for this project is, therefore, $247,100.00 including the additional services detailed in this supplemental proposal. Consistent with our Professional Services Agreement, labor will be billed on an hourly basis using our Standard Rate Schedule and reimbursable expenses will be billed to the City at cost with no URSfBRW markup. SCHEDULE The following is an updated schedule for the project: Preliminary Plans Submitted to Mn/DOT for Review Approve Cooperative Agreement/Plans & Specs Bid Opening Award Contract Start Construction Construction Complete November 2000 February/March 2001 March/Apffi 2001 April/May 2001 May 2001 November 2001 The project schedule is dependent upon the Mn/DOT Cooperative Agreement review process. The schedule detailed above may need to be modified based upon the review process. Two original copies of this proposal are enclosed. If the proposal is acceptable, please execute both copies on the signature blocks provided below and return one copy to us for our records. Please let me know if you have any questions or you need any additional information. Sincerely, BRW, Inc. Vice President BRW, Inc. APPROVED BY: CITY OF COLUMBIA EIGHTS N~i'le Title Signature Date Copy: Kevin Kielb/BRW Kim Schaffer/BRW File 33910-004-1001 Title Signature Date Mr. Kevin Hansen December 12, 2000 Page 5 CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of.' 12/26/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA NO: t-4 - A - ~ ITEM: RENEWAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR CONTINUATION OF SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC WORKS ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS BY: K. Hla~/~;~ 0~ DATE: 0 CITY MANAGER BDY~-~ ~ Background: The Public Works Department is in the process of developing a strong safety program. Through an internal safety committee and also participating in the City-wide safety committee, staff continually strives to maintain and improve upon the safety measures, goals and training within the department. This year the department, following City Council approval, contracted with Integrated Loss Control to provide program support, which provided technical review and recommendations, safety training, and general guidance in areas of safety development and staff concerns. Analysis/Conclusion: During the past twelve months staff believes significant progress has been made. Summarily, the following activities were conducted and have been successfully completed with ILC: , 5. 6. 7. 8. 11. Benchmark audit of Health and Safety Compliance Program in Public Works. Benchmark audit of Environmental Compliance Program in Public Works. Based on the audit findings (both safety and environmental), safety goals were established and an annual work plan developed. Updated all Health and Safety Compliance programs in a standard format. Updated all relevant Environmental Compliance programs in a standard format. Established and organized required safety related record keeping. Conducted employee training on newly updated safety and environmental programs. Established an annual employee environmental, health and safety training curriculum and subsequently conducted training. Assisted with an unannounced OSHA inspection and its timely resolution. Responded as a readily available resource to various requests for information related to safety and environmental compliance. Conduct a monthly MSC building walk-through inspection. Now that an audit has been completed and deparlmental and training goals are in place, the Public Works Safety Committee recommends the following items to be accomplished in 2001: Review and sign~off of all written compliance programs as required annually by OSHA. Continuation of required safety and environmental training program development and the creation of an Environmental, Health and Safety Training Library, customized to the Public Works Department. This information will be the basis for all annual refresher training, new employee training (including seasonal) and employee cross-training of selected jobs. Conduct Job Hazard Analysis of selected jobs and certain special tasks associated with Public Works Activities. Integrate this information into the training programs. Begin inspection visits to selected jobs in the field and remote facilities. These visits will serve to provide a basic level of oversight regarding program application. They will also serve to make the Environmental, Health and Safety Program visible to all employees. Provide a fixed level of routine program support and on-going resource for management and employees. Continue support and advice for the Public Works Safety Committee. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: 12/26/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA NO: ITEM: RENEWAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR CONTINUATION OF SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SLIPPORT FOR PUBLIC WORKS ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS BY: K. Hansen DATE: 12/19/00 CITY MANAGER BY: DATE: Page 2 Continued Renewal of Professional Services for Continuation of Safety Management Program Support for Public Works Staff has been pleased with the professionalism and technical expertise that Integrated Loss Control has demonstrated and recommends renewal of the professional service contract for 2001. Funds have been appropriated in the 2001 Public Works budget. Recommended Motion: Move to accept the proposal dated December 4, 2000 from Integrated Loss Control, Inc., for Safety Management Program Support services for the Public Work Department in an amount not-to-exceed $7,224; and, furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same. rd .'jb COUNCIL ACTION: Michael H. Holmquist, CSP President Gary E. Caple, CIH Vice President Technical Service December 4, 2000 Integrated Loss Control, Inc. 600 County Road D West · Suite I · New Brighton, MN 55112 · (651) 633-6525 Services In: Safety ' Ergonomics Industrial Hygiene Risk Management Human Resources Disability Management Environmental Affairs Mr. Schawn Johnson Administrator Assistant City of Columbia Heights Public Works Dept. 637 38th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Re: Rene~val Service Proposal - On-Going Environmental, Health and Safety Management Program Support Dear Mr.~n: Thank you for this opportunity to submit this proposal for continuation of service to the City of Columbia Heights, Public Works Department. The greatest compliment that can be given ILC is to be asked to continue our service partnership. Thank you. ILC has become a part of the Public Works Department team over the past year, and greatly appreciates the opportunity to continue building our relationship. Our current Agreement period ends December 31, 2000. We have prepared this renewal to contain the same flexibility and level of service that was in our original Service Agreement. I have based this renewal proposal and cost on the experience we have obtained during our past year working with the Public Works Department. During the past service period (12 months) much progress has been made. In summary, the following goals set forth at the beginning of last year have been successfully completed: 1) Bench mark audit of Health and Safety Compliance Program. 2) Bench mark audit of Environmental Compliance Program. 3) Based on the audit (both safety and environmental) findings set goals and established an annual work plan. 4) Updated and re-wrote all Health and Safety Compliance programs in a standard format. Established and organized required recordkeeping. 5) Updated all relevant Environmental Compliance programs in a standard format. Established and organized required recordkeeping. 6) Conducted employee training on newly updated safety and environmental programs. 7) Established an annual employee environmental, health and safety training curriculum and conducted training. Alternative Resources Through Qualified Professionals 8) 9) lo) Assisted with the resolution of an OSHA inspection. Responded, as a readily available resource, to various requests for information related to safety and environmental compliance. Conducted shop walk-through inspections. Now that the basic compliance programs are in place, the following selected items remain to b.e accomplished over the coming months: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) OSHA requires an annual review and sign-off of all written compliance programs. Continuation of required safety and environmental training program development and' the creation of a Environmental, Health and Safety Training Library, customized to the Public Works Department. This information will be the basis for all annual refxesher training, new employee orientation training (including seasonal) and employee cross training of selected jobs. Conduct Job Hazard Analysis of selected jobs and certain special tasks associated with the job. Integrate this information into the training programs. Begin inspection visits to selected jobs in the field. These visits will serve to provide a basic level of oversight regarding program application. They will also serve to make the Environmental, Health and Safety Program visible to all employees. Provide a fixed level of routine program support and on-going resource for management and employees. Continue support for the Safety Committee The following excerpt from our proposed Service Agreement will give you a more complete description of the services to be delivered on a monthly basis. Service Considered: ILC would continue to be a part of the Public Works Department (City's) Environmental, Health and Safety Management Program (office), providing a fixed level of (monthly) on-site support. In addition to the routine on-site service, the City has continuous access to ILC support staff by telephone for questions or information needs at no additional cost. ILC is also readily available to respond to unplanned issues for which the City wish to utilize ILC beyond its regular service level. ILC will continue to assist the City in developing and maintainingprogram unity and consistency. This proposal will continue to provide a good balance between an individual's administration/operational responsibilities and those safety and environmental compliance activities which he or she may choose to perform, with oversight assistance from ILC. This level of service will continue to assist with maintaining a safe workplace and meet safety and environmental compliance requirements. It frees up time for the City staff to address daily operational issues and reduce compliance and administrative worries. Environmental, Healtit and Safety Monthly On-Going Support (one on-site visit per month covering a 12 month service period, 6 hours per month total, 5 hrs. safety and 1 hr. Renewal Service Proposal City of Columbia Heights Public Works Department Mr. Schawn Johnson December 4, 2000 Integrated Loss Control, Inc. · (651) 633-6525 environmental) The monthly on-site visit will address mainly health and safety program issues with necessary time allotted to environmental program needs. During the course of the service period there will be times when environmental compliance reporting requirements will require more time than normally given during the routine visits. This extra time can be covered by reducing the time allotted for safety during that month or treated as a special project and not take away from the established routine support. ILC proposes to continue providing a fixed level of monthly support to the Environmental, Health and Safety Program at the City. This will include assisting with routine operation reviews to ensure compliance with applicable occupational health and safety regulations and relevant environmental requirements. Service would include training on selected topics, assistance with Safety Committee (training, resources, etc.), facility tours to identify any health or safety issues which could adversely impact the · health or safety of employees, perform required reporting to regulatory agencies and serve as an on-call resource for management. Coordinate services available from other sources, such as insurance companies, would be provided to help ensure no duplication of services or unnecessary costs. A structured workplan for both safety and environmental affairs will be maintained. The workplan items would be addressed over the normal Service Agreement period, unless required to expedite, with prior approval, a particular Hem. During the monthly site visits the following, at minimum, will be accomplished: Health and Safer3' Within the allotted time, conduct a facility physical hazard identification walk- through and discuss findings with the designated management representative. A written copy of any issues identified will be provided. Review all applicable OSHA and environmental recordkeeping, making sure all records are current and complete. Examples might be; employee training records (Right-To-Know, fork truck, equipment operation, etc.), crane, chain and sling inspection records, fork truck inspection records, injury reporting, First Reports of Injury, accident investigation follow-up, reports, etc. Meet with the designated management representative to discuss any safety and health issues which have been identified by employees since our last visit or during the site visit conducted by the ILC representative. Answer questions. D, If applicable, conduct quarte~y carbon monoxide monitoring as required by OSHA (gas powered fork trucks). Cost is $9.00 per truck for sampling tubes. Re-ewal Service Proposal City of Columbia Heights Public Works Department Mr. Schawn Johnson December 4, 2000 Integrated Loss Control, Inc. · (651) 633-6525 Identify any OSHA requirements that may have changed due to current operations or that have been published which impact operations. Make the necessary updates and communicate the changes as required. Conduct safety related training on predetermined topics. This would include training on the updated Environmental, Health and Safety Program and its compliance requirements applicable to the facility. G, Review the Material Safety Data Sheet file and update as necessary. Coordinating this applicable information between safety program and environmental program needs. Environmental Affairs A, Within the allotted time, conduct a facility walk-through of the operations and discuss findings with the designated representative. A written copy of any issues identified will be provided. B, Review all applicable environmental record keeping, making sure all records are current and complete. C, Meet with the designated representative to discuss any environmental issues which have been identified by staff since our last visit or during the site visit conducted by the ILC representative. Answer questions. Insure that applicable compliance reporting requirements are met, which could include: discharge reports, hazardous waste manifest review and shipping, Tier II reporting, air emissions, etc. Identify any environmental requirements that may have changed due to current operations or that have been published which impact operations. Make the necessary updates and communicate the changes as required. Conduct training on predetermined topics. This would include training on the updated Environmental Program and its compliance requirements applicable to City of Columbia Public Works Department. Review the Material Safety Data Sheet file and update as necessary. Coordinating this applicable information with the safety program. General On-going Service will include: Coordinate with the insurance Agent and insurance company any industrial hygiene sampling required or other services as may be needed. Renewal Service Proposal City of Columbia Heights Public Works Department Mr. Schawn Johnson December 4, 2000 Integrated Loss Control, Inc. · (651) 633-6525 , Serve as an ex-officio member of the Company Safety Committee, providing guidance and technical support. 3. Maintain facility Environmental, Health and Safety Program binders. Within the time allotted, develop any applicable environmental, health and safety compliance programs and provide the required training to supervision and employees. In addition, provide various recordkeeping forms, which will serve to · meet applicable recordkeeping requirements. 5. Coordinate with other state agencies other services as may be needed. As appropriate, and when applicable, serve as an ex-officio member of the Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Team, providing guidance and technical support. Serve as a readily available resource for questions from the management or their designated representative at any time without additional cost. , ILC would welcome any opportunity to conduct joint training or other services to other cities with which the City of Columbia Heights may have a mutual aid arrangement. Any additional costs, related to such an activity, would reflect applicable discounts due to additional potential business opportunities for ILC. Cost of Service: Routine Monthly Service - The fixed monthly cost for providing both safety and environmental monthly on-site service (one visit per month) is as follows (this includes travel, training equipment, reporting and on-site time): $602.00 per month, covering a 12 month period Due to increases in the cost of doing business over the past year, we found it necessary to have a minor increase to our basic service fee (labor, travel and training equipment expense), which was effective last January 1, 2000. This increase equals $11.00 per month over last years contact. Reimbursable Expenses: Should it be necessary, hours above and beyond the allotted hours for the service period will be billed at an hourly rate determined by the nature of the service requested. No cost beyond the set monthly service fee will be incurred without prior approval of the City. When applicable, a blended rate will be developed fxom the following: Senior Professional .... $97.00 Senior Associate ....... $80.00 Technician ........... $51.00 Clerical .............. $28.00 Renewal Service Proposal City of Columbia Heights Public Works Department Mr. Schawn Johnson December 4, 2000 Integrated Loss Control, Inc. · (651) 633-6525 Travel .................. 3/4 the applicable hourly rate Mileage .............. $0.40 cents per mile The cost of this service covers ILC staff time only. Therefore, when ILC is requested to use its technical equipment such as industrial hygiene monitoring equipment and various audio visual equipment, ILC will invoice a basic use fee for the period of time the equipment is used. Prior approval will be obtained from the City before such a cost is incurred. ' - If requested by the City that ILC staff have to travel out of town, meals, lodging and mileage would be paid according to the following schedule: Travel status - 3/4 the applicable hourly rate Meals - Breakfast ($7.00) Lunch ($9.00) Dinner ($17.00) Lodging - actual cost (reasonable accommodations) Mileage - $0.40 cents per mile - If requested by the City that ILC staff attend a special seminar at a time and place specifically relating to this Agreement, any cost for registration, materials, travel, lodging etc., will be paid as follows: Travel Status, Meals, Lodging, Mileage - at the above rates Registration and Materials - actual cost - With prior approval of the City, ILC will be reimbursed for supplies it purchases for activities related to this Agreement. Normally supplies will be obtained through the City. - Questions regarding expenses will be brought to the attention of the individual responsible for the service request. I hope this information and the proposed approach meet with your approval. I will contact you within a few days, after you have had an opportunity to review this renewal proposal, to see if you or others have any questions or what you would like the next step to be. If you agree with the renewal proposal, I will insert this into the body of a Service Agreement (identical to our most recent Agreement) and submit it for your final review and approval. If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me at 651/633-6525. Once again, thank you for this opportunity, your time and continued consideration. Michael Holmq~u t~ President Renewal Service Proposal City of Columbia Heights Public Works Department Mr. Schawn Johnson December 4, 2000 Integrated Los,~ Control, Inc. · (651) 633-6525 CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: December 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT NO: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL ITEM: AUTHORIZE LONG-TERM DISABILITY BY: INSURANCE PROVIDER DATE: NO: In July 1995, the City Council authorized the Mayor and City Manager to execute the necessary documents with Standard insurance of Portland for provision of long-term disability insurance. Long-term disability insurance is provided to certain employees of the City who have negotiated such a benefit in their labor contracts. As more employee groups have negotiated long-term disability into their contracts, staff, through Johnson-McCann Benefits, requested proposals from other proriders. As a result, we were able to obtain the same level of coverage at almost half the cost from another company, Jefferson Pilot Insurance. Staff recommends authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the necessary documents with Jefferson Pilot Insurance for provision of long-term disability insurance, effective February 1, 2001. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the necessary documents with Jefferson Pilot Insurance for provision of long-term disability insurance, effective February 1, 2001. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: December 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT t~_ ~_ ~ ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S NO: CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL ITEM: 2001-2003 TEAMSTERS LABOR AGREEMENT- BY: LINDA L. MAGEE BY: ~ SERGEANTS DATE: 12-18-00 DATE: NO: Page 2 The attached forms must be presented to the governing body of each public employer at the time it ratifies a collective bargaining contract. The Form must be available for public inspection during normal business hours within five (5) calendar days after ratification by the public employer. The difference between the percentage change from baseline reflected on the Uniform Settlement Form and the total cost package is attributable to the fact that the form includes cost of movement through the wage schedule. This is not included as a part of the total cost package of the City unless there is a change in the wage schedule (ex., added step, etc.) Thus, if the new dollars for wage schedule movement and the corresponding Medicare and retirement contribution attributable to the wage schedule movement were subtracted, the change in baseline would be the same as the total cost package. Likewise, if all members of the bargaining unit were at the maximum of their range, the change from baseline and the total cost package would be the same. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of the resolution, there being ample copies available to the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2000-99, regarding the Labor Agreement between the City of Columbia Heights and the Teamsters, Local 320~-Police Sergeants, effective January 1, 2001 - December 31, 2003. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: December 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT NO: ITEM: 2001-2003 TEAMSTERS LABOR AGREEMENT- SERGEANTS NO: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL BY: LINDA L. MAGEE BY: DATE: 12~18-~E: The current labor agreement between the City and the Teamsters, Local 320, representing Police Sergeants, terminates on December 31, 2000. Negotiations between the City's negotiation spokesperson and the Teamsters have resulted in a mutually acceptable labor agreement for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003. The proposed changes are as follows: Waqes: 2001: 2002: 2003: 3.5% adjustment over 2000 wages 3.5% adjustment over 2001 wages 3.5% adjustment over 2002 wages Insurance: 2001: $475 per month (2000 = $455 per month) 2002: $505 per month 2003: $535 per month Holidays: Addition of one premium holiday (Easter) Deferred ComDensation: Employer shall contribute $1 for every $1 contributed by the employee; $400 per full-time employee for 2001; $400 per full-time employee for 2002; $400 per full-time employee for 2003 (2000=$300). Attached is a resolution which would adopt and establish the changes as negotiated for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003. Also attached is a copy of the new contract language incorporating the changes. The total cost package over the three years is 11.66%. Also attached is a uniform settlement form. Minnesota Statute 179A.07, Subdivision 7, requires completion of a Uniform Settlement Form (Form). The Form is applicable to contract negotiations between exclusive representatives and all public employers, other than Townships. The Bureau of Mediation Services (Bureau) is charged with developing the Form and related instructions for compliance with the statute. Pursuant to that charge, the Bureau has adopted the attached Form to meet the requirements of this legislation. The Form is not intended to be a report of a public employer's labor costs or a substitute for the costing by labor or management of their collection bargaining proposals. Its purpose is limited to fulfilling the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 179A.07, Subdivision 7. It is the intention of this legislation to provide a standard basis for public employers and the public to compare the economic elements of collective bargaining settlements. COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION 2000-99 REGARDING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS AND TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 320, POLICE SERGEANTS WHEREAS, negotiations have proceeded between the Teamsters, Local 320, representing Police Sergeants of the City, and members of the City negotiating team, and said negotiations have resulted in a mutually acceptable contract for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003; WHEREAS, a copy of said contract is available for inspection at the Office of the City Manager and is made a part hereof by reference; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the contract agreement as negotiated, be and is hereby established as the salary and fringe benefit program for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003 for Teamsters, Local 320-Police Sergeants, bargaining unit employees of the City; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager be authorized to execute this agreement. Passed this __day of ,2000. Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk December 13, 2000 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PROPOSAL TO THE TEAMSTERS (POLICE SERGEANTS) , ARTICLE XI INSURANCE 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of four hundred seventy-five dollars ($475) per month per employee for calendar year 2001 for group health, including dependent coverage, life, and long-term disability insurance. The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of five hundred and five dollars ($505) per month per employee for calendar year 2002 for group health, including dependent coverage, life, and long-term disability insurance. The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of five hundred and thirty-five dollars ($535) per month per employee for calendar year 2003 for group health, including dependent coverage, life, and long-term disability insurance. Employees not choosing dependent coverage cannot be covered at EMPLOYER expense for any additional insurance than the individual group health, group life, and group dental insurance. Additional life insurance can be purchased by employees at the employee's expense to the extent allowed under the EMPLOYER'S group policy. By mutual agreement, employees may use up to the amount of the premium for individual dental insurance coverage of the per month per employee of health, life, and long-term disability insurance dollars in Articles 11.1, 11.2, and 11.3. ARTICLE XIV HOLIDAYS In lieu of holidays, employees shall be paid twelve (12) eight-hour days per year. Employees required to work on any of the following nine holidays: New Year's Day, President's Day, Easter, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve Day, and Christmas Day shall receive an additional one-half time for each hour they work on such holiday. ARTICLE XIX WAGE RATES 19.1 The 2001 Wage Schedule will be: Entry: $4,577 After 1 year: $4,728 After 2 years: $4,879 After 3 years: $5,030 , December 13, 2000 19.2 The 2002 Wage Schedule will be: Entry: $4,737 After 1 year: $4,894 After 2 years: $5,050 After 3 years: $5,206 19.3 The 2003 Wage Schedule will be: Entry: $4,903 After 1 year: $5,065 After 2 years; $5,226 After 3 years: $5,388 19.4 As a form of additional compensation, the City will contribute $1 per permanent and probationary full-time employee toward a city-sponsored deferred compensation program for every $1 contributed by such employee toward such city-sponsored deferred compensation program. Such employer contribution will not exceed $400 for calendar year 2001, $400 for calendar year 2002, and $400 for calendar year 2003. ARTICLE XX SHIFT HOLD OVERS 20.1 For every hour in excess of ten hours per calendar quarter that the EMPLOYER requires an EMPLOYEE to extend his/her shift, the EMPLOYER shall credit such employee with one-and-one-half hours of compensatory time. Extension of a shift under Section 20.2 is not included in the calculation of the ten hours. 20.2 When an EMPLOYEE's assigned shift is to work a patrol district as a call car and the activity of the shift requires that EMPLOYEE to work beyond his/her scheduled shift, the EMPLOYER shall credit such EMPLOYEE with one-and-one-half hours of compensatory time for each hour worked beyond such scheduled shift. ARTICLE XXIII DURATION This AGREEMENT shall be effective as of January 1, 2001, and shall remain in full force and effect until the thirty-first day of December, 2003. TT, i o I I "< 0 "-I 0 rt '-I (D' -. 0 :,- ~ O I.~ ~D ID_ CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: December 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT NO: ITEM: NO: CONTINUE AGREEMENT WITH HONEYWELL ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER ' S CITY MANAGER ' S APPROVAL BY: · DATE: 12-18100 DA In November of 1992, the City entered into a seven-year agreement with Honeywell to provide an energy conservation program encompassing a retrofit program, an off-site energy management program, and a full-service equipment maintenance program. In November of 1999, the City entered into a one-year contract with Honeywell for provision of off-site energy management services and equipment maintenance services. Either party could terminate the contract upon 60 days notice. The one-year contract with Honeywell had an option to renew on a yearly basis. Honeywell provided the City with a cost of $69,924 to continue the contract for the period of November 24, 2000 - November 23, 2001. This represents a 3% increase over 1999-2000. All terms and conditions would remain the same, and thus either party could terminate the contract upon sixty-day notice. Staff recommends entering into a one-year contract with Honeywell for provision of off-site energy management services and equipment maintenance services at a cost of $69,924. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a one-year agreement with Honeywell for the provision of off-site energy management services and equipment maintenance services at a cost of $69,924. COUNCIL ACTION: Home and Building Control Honeywell MN 56-0000 7171 Ohms Lane Edina. MN 55439 Honeywell November 30, 2000 City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Atm. Walt Fehst Dear Walt: Honeywell proposes to continue the maintenance agreement with the City of Columbia Heights for the period of 11/24/2000 thru 11/23/2001. The new annual price will be $69,924.00 with quarterly billing. All terms and conditions will remain the same as agreed to in the Honeywell proposal number 914-99002 dated 10/11/99. Please sign and return two copies of this letter to my attention. Our service will continue without interruption. Thank you for allowing Honeywell to service your facilities. Reg~ards, ' ~ Zander ~'~'~"" District Service Leader 952-830-3715 Approval: Date: CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Meeting of: December 11, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: Consent NO: t'l -A ITEM: Resolution 2000-92, Appointment of EDA Commissioner ORIGINATING CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: EDA PROVAL ISSUE STATEMENT: The City Cotmcil is requested to approve the Mayor's appointment of Commissioner Szurek to the Columbia Heights EDA term which expires on January 8, 2001 and appointment of Councilmembers-elect Robert A. Williams and Bruce Nawrocki to the terms expiring January 8, 2005 and January 8, 2003, respectively. BACKGROUND: Mayor Peterson has re-appointed Commissioner Marlaine Szurek to the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority for another six (6) year term which will expire effective January 8, 2001. By authority of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469, EDA Commissioners are appointed by the Mayor and must be approved by the City Council. We have attached a copy of a letter from Mayor Peterson requesting City Council approval for the re-appointment of Commissioner Szurek and appointment of Councilmembers-elect Williams and Nawrocki to the Columbia Heights EDA. You will also find attached a copy of draft Resolution 2000-92 and a summary sheet identifying the existing appointments and term expirations for the EDA members. ANALYSIS: In a related matter, staff has become aware of a recent rule of the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development which mandates resident participation on public housing agency boards. The rule is designed to increase resident participation and requires that the governing body of a public housing agency make available at least one Commissioner's seat to a resident member of a public housing facility. This rule appears to apply to the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority because of the public housing facility at Parkview Villa Noah. Staff is in the process of preparing the necessary administrative policy related to making this appointment. Said policy will be distributed at the Council meeting. In short, the policy will require a notice to be posted for a minimum of 30 days seeking applicants to the vacancy of the next available at-large members term (President Ruettimann on January 8, 2002). RECOMMENDATION: The Mayor is requesting City Council approval of his re-appointment of Commissioner Szurek to the EDA term which will expire on January 8, 2001 and the appointment of Councilmembers-elect Williams and Nawrocki. MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2000-92, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2000-92, being a Resolution Approving the Appointment of Commissioners to the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority. Attachments COUNCIL ACTION: H:\Res.2000-92,Re-Appointment of EDA Comm. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-92 BEING A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS TO THE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. WHEREAS, the City has, by the adoption of Resolution No. 96-01 (enabling resolution), duly created an Economic Development Authority (EDA) for the City of Columbia Heights pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469 (Act), and WHEREAS, the Enabling Resolution provides that the Board of Commissioners of the EDA shall consist of seven members, at least two, but not more than five, of who must be members of the City Council, and WHEREAS, the Mayor has this day re-appointed the following person as Commissioner of the EDA for the term as indicated: Patricia Jindra Term ending January 8, 2006 WHEREAS, the Mayor has this day appointed the following persons as Commissioners of the EDA for the terms as indicated: Robert A. Williams (Bobby) Bruce Nawrocki Term ending January 8, 2005 Term ending January 8, 2003 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the appointment of Marlaine Szurek, Robert A. Willjams and Bruce Nawrocki to the aforementioned terms of the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority. Passed this 27th day of December, 2000. Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk H:\ResolutionX2000-92 Mayor: Gary L. Peterson Councilmembers: Donald G, Jolly Marlaine Szurek Julienne Wyckoff John Hunter City Manager: Walter R. Fehst ADMINISTRATION December 20, 2000 Kenneth R. Anderson Deputy Executive Director Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority 590 40th Avenue N.E. Columbia Heights, MN 55421 RE: Appointment of EDA Commissioners. Dear Ken: I am hereby writing to inform you of my decision to reappoint Marlaine Szurek to the term on the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority expiring on January 8, 2001. Also, I am appointing Councilmember-elect Robert A. Williams and Bruce Nawrocki to the unexpired terms ending January 8, 2005 and January 8, 2003, respectively. As you know, these appointments are subject to approval of the City Council, therefore, I am requesting you schedule the approval of these appointments for the City Council meeting scheduled on December 27, 2000. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours very truly, Gary L. Peterson Mayor C' Walt Fehst, Executive Director Patty Muscovitz Day File H:\Ken\Appointment of EDA Commissioners2001 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY December 21, 2000 The Economic Development Authority is responsible for the administration and maintenance of Parkview Villa and Parkview Villa South, low income housing, federally funded activities authorizing home mortgage programs and the orderly development or redevelopment of the City. The EDA Board of Commissioners consists of seven members who serve a term of six years. Members of the Authority are appointed by the Mayor. Patricia Jindra 2115 43rd Avenue N.E. 572-8447 Robert Ruettimann 2115 43rd Avenue N.E. 789-7797 Julienne Wyckoff Gary L. Peterson Marlaine Szurek Don Jolly John Hunter Term expires January 8, 2006 Term expires January 8, 2002 Term expires January 8, 2004 Term expires January 8, 2002 Term expires January 8, 2001 Term expires January 8, 2005 Term expires January 8, 2003 Contact: Executive Director of the EDA EDA Secretary Meets third Tuesday of each month at 6:30 p.m. at Parkview Villa. Per Resolution No. 96-03 all terms expire on January 8th. H:\Ken\EDA Commissioners 2000 http://www.revisor. leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getstatchap.pl bonds issued by the governmental subdivision that initiated the project or program. The economic development authority may exercise all of the powers necessary to perform the terms, conditions, and covenants of any indenture or other agreements executed for the security of the bonds and shall become obligated on the bonds when the project or program is transferred as provided in this subdivision. If the city transfers a housing project or a housing development project to the economic development authority, the city must transfer all housing development and management powers relating to that specific project to the authority. Subd. 3. Transfer of personnel. Notwithstanding any other law or charter provision to the contrary, the city council may, by resolution, place any employees of the housing and redevelopment authority under the direction, supervision, or control of the economic development authority. The placement of any employees under the direction, supervision, or control of the economic development authority does not affect the rights of any employees of the housing and redevelopment authority, including any rights existing under a collective bargaining agreement or fringe benefit plan. The employees shall become employees of the economic development authority. HIST: 1987 c 291 s 95; 1990 c 532 s 11,12 ==469.095 469.095 Commissioners; appointment, terms, vacancies, pay, removal. Subdivision 1. Commissioners. Except as provided in subdivision 2, paragraph (d), an economic development authority shall consist of either three, five, or seven commissioners who shall be appointed after the enabling resolution provided for in section 469.093 becomes effective. The resolution must indicate the number of commissioners constituting the authority. Subd. 2. Appointment, terms; vacancies. (a) Three-member authority: the commissioners constituting a three-member authority, one of whom must be a member of the city council, shall be appointed by the mayor with the approval of the city council. Those initially appointed shall be appointed for terms of two, four, and six years, respectively. Thereafter all commissioners shall be appointed for six-year terms. (b) Five-member authority: the commissioners constituting a five-member authority, two of whom must be members of the city council, shall be appointed by the mayor with the approval of the city council. Those initially appointed shall be appointed for terms of two, three, four, five, and six years respectively. Thereafter all commissioners shall be appointed for six-year terms. (c) Seven-member authority: the commissioners constituting a seven-member authority, two of whom must be members of the city council, shall be appointed by the mayor with the approval of the city council. Those initially appointed shall be appointed for terms of one, two, three, four, and five years respectively and two members for six years. Thereafter all commissioners shall be appointed for six-year terms. IO0 of 270 ~ ~/?'7/~n q.,;~t CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: December 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: N: ITEM: NO: Establish Hearing Dates License Revocation, Rental Properties ORIGINATING CITY DEPARTMENT: MANAGER Fire APPROVAL BY: Dana Alexon DATE: December 20, 2000 B Y DATE: Revocation or suspension of a license to operate a rental property within the City of Columbia Heights is requested against the following owners regarding their rental property for failure to meet the requirements of the Housing Maintenance Codes. 1. Salman Ali ....................................................................1224-1226 Circle Terrace RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Establish a Hearing Date of January 8, 2001 for Revocation or Suspension of a License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against Saltnan Ali at 1224-1226 Circle Terrace Blvd NE. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER AGENDA SECTION: NO: ITEM: NO: Consent SOFTWARE SUPPORT AGREEMENT WITH ACS, INC. L,~ MEETING OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: FINANCE BY: Roxane Smith 4 DATE: December 20, 2000 December 27, 2000 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL In December of 1989 the City entered into an agreement with Business Records Corporation, now ACS, Inc., to purchase a five-year software support agreement. The agreement was extended for three years in December of 1994 and again in December of 1997. The software support agreement provides us with annual maintenance on software as well as providing, at no cost, updates as changes are made. The attached support agreement is an additional three-year extension of the original agreement. The total cost of the three-year agreement is $26,937.70 or $8,801.96 for the year 2001, $8,978.22 for the year 2002, and $9,157.52 for the year 2003. This is an increase of $652.38 for 2001, $176.26 for 2002, and $179.30 for 2003. This is an average of a 4% increase per year. It is staffs recommendation to continue the software support agreement as it provides ongoing telephone support, help with resolving day-to-day operational problems, updates to the software as they are developed, and ongoing staff training in the operation of various programs. Without the software maintenance agreement the City would not receive so~ware updates. In addition, the City would be charged between $100 and $200 per hour for all service and assistance we receive from ACS. At this average rate, 58 hours of service would cost more than the maintenance agreement. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a three-year software support agreement with ACS, Inc., formerly Business Records Corporation, for maintenance of financial software packages at a cost not to exceed $26,937.70 billed annually at $8,801.96 for 2001, $8,978.22 for 2002, and $9,157.52 for 2003. RS: sms oo 12205COUNCIL COUNCIL ACTION: A C SUPPORT PLUS' SOFTWARE SUPPORT AGREEMENT (SSA) CIT~ OF COLUMII~.~~!_t TS, MINNESOTA ~ CLENV Page 1 of I This AGREEMENT is between AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES (AGS). and the signatory CLIENT. and clearly slam their mutual fesplxlsibillfie$ arid commitments. This agmemenl is in dfecl for one year. in return for the stmed ~ees and tales. II c~rl be modified at any time if beth parties agree to the change in writing. SERVICES: ACSwi~mvi~ethe~mpulerc~nsu~fmgandpre~ramming~en/~esspecied~ndde~medenti~t~s~ Thesemay indude:consulting training. inStallatiOn asalslance, moditicatlon or mainkmsnce d software. ' may take the form 04: 1) changed documor~tio~; 2) chaeged source or o~cede; 3) !~cedures to~k~y/~ss the proUem; Or 4) alidilloral suplx~ UNOERSTANDINGS: All seTvices pedormed by AC$ under this agreement will be paid by the CLIENT according to the agreed fee structure and within 10 days after the date of ACS retaL~s al prepdetaq rights to source programs object programs subroutines. ayouts formats. documerttaGon. and technkNes thai are prepared on behalf of the CLIENT, unless a specili~ exceptiOn is stated herein. ' AC5 will make its besl elferr to schedule and meet scltedded commitm~mts in the order of pdority most irapedant Io the CLIENT. acs lakes into consideralan the CLIENT'S lime schedule, the workSearl of its employees and disnA0tiO~ d CLIENTS° schedules. All enhancement dist~butio~s will be prepared Ior installatto~ at the cur~n1081400 Operatir~g System version ~nd rotease level as well as one prior release 1eveL This agreamsnl, verned I~t the taws of the Stale of 4~'i~etr/.e$OtG~ , is the e, tire aguemerit between Ihe partie". A waiver of any part of this agreemer~ Is limited to that specific ~t~/l~ shall not waiver the entire agreement Any notices required shall be in writing and effective when deposited in the mall prepe~ addressed with Fepaid postage ACS will not Initiate action on any Rein withoul ft~ expreMed conL-~t o1' the CLIENT. This Support Plus Agreemenl will automatically renew on IIs anniversary date with an annual p~,.e increa~.,e of not more then 6%. If ACS or the CLIENT eTects not to renew the Agreemenl. the other pady musl be notaged in writin9 at least 30 days prior Io the a,n~ver,~ary date. Annual fees am non-rdundable. AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES (ACS) wlII provide the folIowin earvices (,SUppORT pLUS.~ }ins ft of the appttcatlo~s listed for the llsled annual fee: The distribution of ACS standard application enhancenents. USer Group Meetings APPLICATIONS COVEREO AND ANNUAL FEE FOR SUPPORTPLUS': Annual Fee 3,550_ , 1,650-- TOTAL This Agreement: _$_ ~ _6_8_ ,9 (+ MNstate .xles tmc Billing Preference: ~ Monl~y (:I Annual Te~m of Support Plus 0 ~_/0 ~/200 ~ - Z ~/_~/~._,Op,~ ADDITIONAL SERVICES (Charged at ACS hourly ram.) Systems analysis, progremming, program testing, d~cumentalion. Dat~ entry and file conversions. Ptanning, slatus meetinQs, aRd feasibility 8tudtes. Hardware and so4twere kllefaceS. Application Specialist. S~ned: x _~ TIUe: X __~ Date: X .......... Client: __C~_t'~ of Columbia Heights ~90 41th AV~ NS _CoZumbtuB_etffhts ~ 55421~835 7,N ',1 b,Cl *NM Phone~, X Fax#: Affiliated Computers Services 290t Third ST S POB 548 Waite Park MN 56387-0548 Phone: 8001800-0181 Fax: 320 1257 - 14T8 Printed...8/14100 - t 0:32 UA 27.'7I ;INl NN-RI-.~:IN A C Page 1 of 1 SUPPORT PLUS' SOFTWARE SUPPORT AGREEMENT (SSA) CLIENT This AGREEMENT is between AFFILIATEO COMPUTER SERVICES (ACS), and the signatory CLIENT, and c~eady sites their mutual respor, slbifitles and commitments. TNs agreemenl Is in effect rot one year, in re~rn for ~e slated fees and roles. tl can be modified at any lime If both paz~es agree to me change in wdUng. ~ERV~CE~:ACSwipr~thec~c~nsu~llngmtdpr~grammings~Ncessped~edandde~ne~en~ke~ybym~s~L~~:~t1ng~n~a~ assistance, mod'icalion or maintenance of software. WARRANTIES AND LIABI LITlESt ACS endeavors to provide high quality services. A/I services are provided by quaTified sift, properly su._l~rv!sed, and will meet the specif, cations agreed tofoy bofh patles. Those sewtces pertonnedbyACS ond detefmined AC$ tobeoflessthan protesskmlquW~ityaleco:Tectedwlthoutcha~getolileCLIENT. Corrections may take the form of: t) chenged documentetion: 2) changed source or obje~Ycode; 3) procedures le WPess the ptoblm; o~ 4) additional support UNDERSTANDINGS: All services perrotund by ACS under ~is agreement will be paid by Ihe CLIENT acc<x~rmg to ~e agreed fee stNcl~e and within 10 days after the date of ACS re4ains all proprlelay rigNs to source programs, ol)ject I:~grerns, subroutines, layouts, formats. documentation. end techniques that are prepared on behallr of Ihe CUENT, a udess specific excepti0h is staled beret. ' ACS will make its best effort to schedule and meet scheduled commilments in the order d priority mosl important to the CUENT. ace takes into considera~on the CLIENT'S time schedule, ~e workload of ils emp4oyees end disruption of CLIENTS' schedules. All enhancement disbibulions will be prepared for installation at the current OSI&OO Operating System version end release level as well as one prior release level. This agremnent, govemed by the laws ofthe State oI' Ml~ltD, e,fOtlZ ,istheedkeagreementbetweenffiepadies. Awaiver of a~ arl of thls agreement is limited to that specific event en~ shall not waiver the efffi re agreement. Any notices ~equlrea she9 be in wd ling and effective when ~leposited in the mail proper~y addressed with prepaid postage. AC$ will not initiate action on any item without the exl~essed consent of the CLIENT, This Support Rue Agreemefil will automaticagy renew on its enniversay date with an annual price increase of not more thar~ 8%. If ACS or the CLIENT elects net to renew the Agreement, the other pmly must be notired in writing at least ~0 days prior to the annivesan/date. Annual fees are non-refundable. AFFIUATED COMPUTER SERVICES {ACS) will providt the followin sen4ces ("SUPPORt PLUS" TM ) I~ eupport o! the appllcattens listed for the listed annual fee: UrffimitedtralningalenACSttainlngtaciityatreg~a,y~?uledclasses. Tbeprobtern 'sofllemsl0foughttoAC$1nWaitePark. The disL, ibutio~ of ACS standard~llcation enhancemenls. User Group Meetings. APPLICATIONS COVERED AND ANNUAt, FEE FOR SUPPORT PLUSla: AppllcaUons AccouB~Papable 811staem Acc~_nts_lb~cetnabk Sptem (,4/R) Cash R.e. ce~ts 8gste_m.(C/R) ~oat _a~va_4 As.set b~stem ~,~F~nandaLSgstem (GYS) .Crp_IEt_ PagrolI Sgst~m (PA YMA TE) VUU~._Bi_~.t_n__. spstem (V/R) Annual Fee 602 fncl tn 1,683 :Zo804 TOTAL This Agreement: $ 8,863 (+ MNstete aebgs tax oJ~$115.22) nilling ~m~: ~ ely ~ An~al Term of Support Plus o zlo z/2oo2 - ADDItiONAL SERVICES {Cltarged at Ab"~ hourly rates.) 0r,~le VittS. S~ midyale. lYOgramming, pro~am lesling, documentation. Oata entry 83r~1 file conversions. Ranning, status meeln~s, anO feasibility sludies. Ham ware and enf~vae ruledaces. Application Specialist SIgned: X TiUe: X _ Date: X c,test: Cttg o~' CoZumb~a Heights 590 41th A~ ~ CoZu~ia Edgh~ ~ 55421-3835 ~R 'A bQ 'FN Phone~: X- Fax#: Affiliated Computers Services 290t Third ST ~ POB S48 Walte Park MN 66387-0648 Phone: 800 1800 - 0181 Fax: 3201257-1478 ,~ldT C'rl4 Printed..8114/00 - 10:32 l.!J C:7.~I '3rll fi~_~I_/'1~/I A A C ~ SUPPORT PL US ' SOFTWARE SUPPORT AGREEMENT (SSA) This AGREEMENT is between AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES (AC8), and the signatoP/CUENT. at~d deady States their mutual responsibilities and commitments. Th~s agreement Is In effect for one year, in remm for Ihe staled fees and ra~es. It can be moffi~ed at any time ir both padies agree to the change in writing. SERVICES: ACS will provide the compute consulting and ixogramming sor~ces specle~ end defined entirely by this agreement. Tllese may include: consulting training installa~on WARRANTIES AND UABILITIEa: AG8 eMeavors to pro~le high qualily Seevices. All servioes are lYovk:led ~ quailred staff, properly su.pen~..d, encl will meet the q:~K:irmatl0n,t gree~tobyboth patli~,. Those sevic~-spm~omee byAO8 enddeMtmir~l l~AC8 tobe~llestlMnprole~stonaTquab/arecontacledwithoutcha~jelotheCLIENT. Corrections ~-y tak l the lorm ot 1) changed documentation; 2) changed souse Or o1:iect ¢oee; 3) pr4x'edures to b/pass t~e 1~4~n; or 43 eddtUone4 suOlx~t UNDER$1'ANDINGa: AI seevice~ per~'med by AGS uncle this agreement wl be paid by the GUENT 8coototing to t~e agreed fee struclufe and within 10 clays aft. el Ihe date of AC8 retains all pfoWielanJ ~ to eeu~e pragrems, object I~ograms. subroutines, layouts, formats, clocumantation, and technl~es that are prepared on behglf o( the 0LIENT, unless a slsef~ exception is stated herein. AG8 will make its best eftoft to ~clledule end meet r,,hedded corntoRments in the order of priority most important to the CLIENT. acs takes into consideration the 0LIENT'8 lime sche~Ue, the worktoad of its employees end disruption o1' 0UENTS' sdmdulet All enhancement distrilNl~ns will be pfelm~ed foe' installation at the ¢~frent 08/400 Operating System version and tetoase level as ~ as one prior eelease tovet. This agreemenL governed by Ihe lawa of the 8tale of Ntnnesota , is the entire agreement beewean the padtee. A waiver ol any pad of this aDreemenl iS limited to ~atspe~if~:eve~ntandshalir, otwak, er~eentireagreement. Anyn~ti~es~:~U~eclsha~beinw~ti~gancle~ecUvew~e~dep~Redinthemallpr~pedyeddre~seclwi~h~eN~p~stsge~ AC8 wilt nol inlliato a~io~ on any item without the exWessed ~ent c4 !he CLIENT. This Suppot1 Plus Agreement wilt automaMcaily renew on ira annive~ary dato imth 8n annual price in~mase of not more ~an 8%. If ACS or the GUENT elects not to renew ths Agreement the olhe~ pa~ must be notifed in wriling at leas130 d~/8 ~ to the anniversary dNe. Annual fees are nonorebn~al~,e. AFFILIATED COMPUTER 8ERMCE$ ~.C8) wUI p~ovkle the Ioltowl Setrites CSUPPORT PLUS' m I la s rt Of the applications li~ted for the listed annual fee: Unli~itedtrainlagatanA08tminingfadityatregulady,~nhe~u~ldas~. l'hepe~alema~a si~e~'u'u'u'u'dPla°em~l:~oughttoAGainWaitepark APPLICAtiONS COVERED AND ANNUAL FEE FOR SUPPORT PLUSre: Applications ,4.~-c~..ounts Pal/abre .~/,etem .(A////////~) 4cc.e~.nt4.Recetwd, te b~/etem _Oe . d 9 ar t Seatern (F/A) _(~_vt.+~ng. Rctn; Spstem _G~o_ vt Payroll SitStem (PAYMA TE_) U~!!i_ty_Billing System Annual Fee Lncl In inel ~ OF8 1,717 ___ 1,840 TOTAL This Agreement: $ 9~,__0~0 ......... Bill~g P~Ce: ~ Mon~ ~ Annual Term of Support Plus re . 01/01/2003- ADDITIONAL SERVICES (Chmrged M AC8 hourly rates.) On-site visits. 8yslems analysis, I~ogramming, program teseng. documenlaeon. Data entry and ~is conversiont Ranning, slams .n2ee~s, and feasibli~ stucliete Hardwa~ Imd soft,we interlaces. Application Specialist. Signed: x __ TiMe: X .... Date: X cuent: City of Columbia Heights _5_9__0_.4_1th AVE NE __C_olumbia Heights MN 55421.3835 'd I;'9 'ON Phone#: X_ Fax #: Affiliated Compute Services 2901 Third ST 8 POe 548 Walte Park MN 56387-0548 Phone: 8001800-018t Fax: 320 1257 - t478 P~ted...N141~ - 10:32 qR1 RR-gl-~qd COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: December 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: ITEM: Approve Final Payment of Parkview Villa Elevator Modernization Project ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER' S Community Development APPROVAL BY: Kenneth Anderson DATE: December 21, 2000 ISSUE STATEMENT: Request City Council authorization to make final payment for the elevator modemization project at Parkview Villa North with said payment to be made to Millar Elevator Service Company. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Staff has been notified by representatives of Millar Elevator Service Company, contractor performing the elevator modernization at Parkview Villa North, and Ted Smith, consultant with Elevator Advisory Group, Inc., that work has been completed on elevator modernization project. Accordingly, the contractor is requesting payment prior to year-end 2000. Staff also considers it important to close out the elevator modernization project within calendar year 2000 in order to keep the necessary audit for this work limited to the fiscal year-end 2000. The elevator modernization contract was for the total amount of $271,488 and included three change orders. The last change order was for work to replace the worm and gear in elevator number one. The consultant has recommended final payment as all the work has been in full compliance with the elevator specifications. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending City Council approval to authorize final payment to Millar Elevator Service Company in the amount up to $35,465.11 subject to receipt of all AIA payment request forms and a final lien waiver to be received by staff on December 26, 2000. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to accept the work for the elevator modernization project at Parkview Villa North and to authorize final payment up to $35,465.11 to Millar Elevator Service Company of St. Paul, Minnesota subject to receipt of final application and certification for payment and lien waiver documents. COUNCIL ACTION: h:\CL consent\Approve Final Payment,PPV Elevator Mod. CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: December 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT.: NO: License Department ITEM: License Agenda BY: Kathryn Pepin NO: DATE: December 21, . CITY MANAGER APPROVAL 2000 BY: BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Attached is the business license agenda for the December 27, 2000 City Council meeting for the renewals for 2001. The application by Jerome Emond for a license to drive a taxicab within the City of Columbia Heights during the 2001 license year has been reviewed by the Police Department and is being recommended for denial due to Mr. Emond's driving record and personal conduct. Mr. Emond was placed on probation by the City Council approximately four years ago due to his extensive driving record. Please refer to the attached memo from Captain William J. Roddy regarding recent findings and concerns pertaining to Mr. Emond. Also attached is a copy of a letter sent to Mr. Emond regarding the action being recommended. At the top of the license agenda you will notice a phrase stating "*Signed Waiver Form Accompanied Application". This means that the data privacy form has been submitted as required. If not submitted, certain information cannot be released to the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for December 27, 2000 and to deny the application by Jerome Emond for a license to drive a taxicab within the City due to concerns with his conduct and driving record as expressed by the Police Department. COUNCIL ACTION: license agenda TO CITY COUNCIL December 27, 2000 *Signed Waiver Form Accompanied Application 2001 BUSINESS LICENSE AGENDA APPROVED BY POLICE DEPT. CIGARETTE/TOBACCO SALES *The 500 Club LLC *Malik's Petroleum ADDRESS 500 N.E. 40th Ave. 3955 University Ave. FEES 200.00 200.00 BUILDING OFFICIAL CONTRACTORS Albers Mechanical Serv. Inc. *Asphalt Driveway Co. *Buchman Plumbing *C & G Contracting *Centraire Heating, Inc. *Crosstown Sign, Inc. Fireside Corner *Gilbert Mechanical Cent. *D.J. Kranz Co. Kraus-Anderson Const. *LBP Mechanical *Leroux Excavating Maple Grove Heating McPhillips Bros. Roofing Mid-City Mechanical *Minnesota Petroleum Modern Roadways *Nedegaard Construction *Northland Fire Protection Quality Refrigeration *Riccar Corporation Ron's Mechanical *Scandy Concrete, Inc. *Sharp Heating *St. Marie Sheet Metal *Suburban Lighting *Superior Contractors *Swenson Heating Topline Advertising *Vogt Heating *Welch Roofing *Wellington Winidows Yale, Inc. *Zimco Specialties 200 W. Plato Blvd. 1211 E. Hwy. 36 1701 - 44th Ave. N. 17830 Englewood Dr. 7402 Washington Ave. 10166 Central Ave. N.E. 2700 N. Fairview Ave. 4451 West 76t" St. 725 Hwy. 169 N. 525 S. 8t" St. 315 Royalston Ave. N. 2104- 64t" St. 401 County Rd. 81 2950 Centennial Dr. 9103 Davenport St. N.E. 7650 Hwy. 65 N.E. 1620 Winnetka Ave. N. 1814 Northdale Blvd. 4445 W, 77'h St. 6237 Penn Ave. S. 2387 Commercial BIrd. N.W. 12010 Old Brick Yard Road 328 E. Hennepin Ave. 4854 Central Ave. 7940 Spring Lake Park Rd. 6077 Lake Elmo Ave. 6121 - 42"d Ave. N. 6700 W. Broadway 11775 Justen Circle 3260 Gorham Ave. 3869- 36th Ave. S. 3938 Meadowbrook Rd. 9649 Girard Ave. S. 3207 Hayes St. 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 POLIGE DEPT. GAMES OF SKILL *The 500 Club LLC *James Wetch, Jr. d/bla Jimmy's Pro Billards *Jubilee Music Company 500 N.E. 40~h Avenue 4040 Central Avenue 4952 Central Ave. Page 2 30.00 465.00 75.00 ZONING/POLICE DEPT. MOTOR VEHICLE SALES *Jeffery Michael Bauer dlb/a H.A.W. Ent. 5101 University Avenue 200.0O POLICE DEPT. HUMANE OFFICER PET SHOP/COMMERCIAL KENNEL *Exotics & Aquatics Pet Supply 4940 Central Avenue 50.00 POLICE/FIRE/BLDG. POOLIBILLARD HALL *James A. Wetch, Jr., d/b/a Jimmy's Pro Billiards 4040 Central Avenue 100.O0 POLICE, FIRE, BUILDING SECONDHAND SALES *Joseph W. Schmidt d/b/a Budget Computer 4024 Central Avenue 100.00 POLICE DEPARTMENT TAXICAB DRIVERS *Olakunle Najim Ogundeji 1428 - 109th Avenue N. W. *Jerome George Emond 2232 Pierce St. N.E. ***DENIAL RECOMMENDED FOR MR. EMOND BY POLICE DEPT., SEE ATTACHED*** 25.OO 25.0O PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. TREE SERVICES *Reliable Tree Servicce 6600 Brookview Dr. N.E. 50.00 POliCE, FIRE & BUILDING ON AND OFF SALE 3.2 BEER *The 500 Club 500 N.E. 40t" Avenue 550.00 license agenda City of Columbia Heights Police Department MEMO To: City Council Members.~ From: Captain William J. Rod Subject: Taxi Cab License Application-Jerome Emond Date: December 8, 2000 The city has received a renewal application for a cab license from Mr. Jerome Emond. I would like to advise that Mr. Emond has received one moving traffic violation in each of the last three years. This alone does not prompt me to recommend denial of the cab licence re-issuance. Of greater concem to me is that in February of 2000, while driving a cab, Mr. Emond had an altercation twice within a few minutes with another motor vehicle driver. On the first incident, verbal exchanges occurred and both parties brandished club type weapons. A short time later, the two met again, the argument resumed and resulted in a physical fight between the two. Mr. Emond has plead guilty to disorderly conduct reference this incident. I must advise that the actions noted in the police report cause me to be greatly concerned about Mr. Emond's ability to control his temper. I am fearful that issuing a license to him, may at some time in the future, place a potential 'fare' in a position of jeopardy. Therefore, I would recommend that Council strongly consider denial of Mr. Emond's cab license application request. CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 4OTH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421-3878 (6 12) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806 December 20, 2000 Jerome G. Emond 2232 Pierce St. n.E. Minneapolis, Mn. 55418 Dear Mr. Emond: Your application for a license to drive a taxicab within the City 'of Columbia Heights during the 2001 license year has been reviewed by the Police Department. Due to occurrences during the year 2000 that affect your driving record, your application has been recommended for denial. The City Council will. act on that recommendation at their meeting scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 27, 2000 on the second floor of City Hall in the Council Chambers. If you have any questions regarding the findings by the Police Department, you may contact Captain William Roddy at 763-706-3754. If you have any questions regarding the license process, you may contact my office at 763-706- 3678. 'Sincere,;/"~' / License Clerk kp Wm. Roddy, Police Captain Suburban Taxi THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER i-:-,'F;,'C I::' ]Z NANC: I K: L SY.'."iE;'TEM :!. 2/2 :t./2C, C,C, C, 9: 3:1.: C, 4 Fi. jl'!I) t:L'IECAF:': F:'UNt) DIiEZSCF:,' ! F:'T ! 0!'t :L () 1 G lEE: hl lEE: F;: A !... 20 :L C(]MML.IN :I: 'r'f DE:VEL. OF:'MEt,IT F:' ... !-,I):) 2()2 A!,!(31<A CCI...N'I"Y ("i)i-'.:r.' :::':".03 F:'r:-'d:k KV :1: EW V :i: I...I...A i,I{:)FL'TH 2(Y4 IE{ C: C! I,! ,'.'::H"'I :[ C :t)IEVE:I...CIF:'ME:I,IT .AL.F'rH ::::".05 :E:iIE:CT:t:C)!,I 8 --'; .I -"',';:: "f' ~.':', "f' I::' ':':- T "'~ .~:..i..~:. , .: .... i ~.,..~..- MA :I: !,I"f'IE!'-IAI,IC:E ~:..L-..., F:'AF:,'!<V:I:E:b, V:[I...I...I':~ SCH...rT'H 225 CABLE 'T'EL.E:V:!:S:!:ON 2:.':!; 5 F;,'E:N 'Y'Ai... !..1 :'i ..}:S :l: I'.-K:.; :'~'::. ::'40 l... ! B FL' A !: L' Y :::T. 50 C:(:)L.. !--iC<;HTS mF:'TfEF;,' SCHOOl... ENF;.'.:[ 276 !...OC:A[.. L.F'.,i-;J E:!,!FC~RCE :E-:L.K GRAt,tT :::?79 C{::IF:'S: SCHCf 31... F:'AI:;,'Ti-i!E:FRSH :[ F:' -'~r;-, (:;:: F: :f: "f'AL"' MF'F;-'.CIVIEE:MEZNTS · ... ,...L .L 4()2 ST'ATE A :!: D "': "~i'i ::;TF;,' i"::T :[ (]1'! 4 :i. 2 CAP :!: TAL. :I: MF:'FL' :]VFE'MF:'!'-iT F:'AF;,' !<'.S 4 :!. !.5, {:;AF:' :1: ]"A!... :!: MF:'F;; :'IVF:'MF::i',IT'- F:' :[ R 6 () :i. i,,.. p T fE!: F ,' L.! T ]: L. :i: "f' :/ 6():::T.' SEt'JEF;,' I.J"f' :[ L.. :[: ]"Y {,():.':! F..'i::'t::'i S.:i' F:'L.!N:C, ':.':()4 STC)F;,'M SE:WI!E:I';.' J'l":l'i. :[TY ,'!i,C, 9 L. :i: QLtOF;; 65 :!. WATE:F;,' C: :iN F';TI:;,' "Yr T 0t,! F:'UI,tD '70:l. CEE:N"!"F:,'AL.. GAF;,'AGIE 7:::T:0 !:)ATm PF;,'(]CESS :1: l,-ICEi ,.-.,,-.~ c:,,:::,:i. C(:)N"f'F:.:]:BLiTE::C, F:'F;.'.OJE:C:T.':'iii-F:.'E:C 8::-i.~4 :i11-!'.EE;I.jFi,'f::d,I(:;E 885 iEE:S(:::!:;:C:H.g ',!EE:86 :[ I-D,-:EST!:'IE:I'--1T' 'rF:,' :.;'i" ,'.:Ei:87 F:'L.E:X BIEEZi".iE:F:':!:"f' "rF;,'LJS' F:' I...I !,i i) 888 F:' ']1... :i: CE/'F:' :!: F;,'!EE: ": :'.t!-lT I:RIE'.SE:F:,",,qEE: D ! SBL.IRSEMIEE:I'--I'T'S 5.:,6 ,. ..... / ...... :l., ::,67 .. 59 I , 99().. C"{) 15 :, 388 .. 87 :[0,65,.'4.94 :1. , 045 .. 00 42 :!... 7 8 & ;, 429 .. 28 Y ...."": 78 36:1... Y :1. 2 ;, :I. 24 .. 59 7 ;, (),<-: 0 .. 35 3 ;: 25 :t... 03 8,320 ,. 87 49 ;, 392 .. 0 2 !, ';::'::37 .. 15 · '.".'~ Y, 897 .. C, 5 · *""' 5:':':,5 " .q 0 -;v 01 !, 351 .. 12 150 .. 0(> ':t7,666 .. 78 5,74.":i- .. 59 971 .. 76 62 .., 205 .. 84 98 !, 618 .. 48 3()C~, ()()0 .. 00 I . ()96 .. 0() 56. 706 .. ()() -]" 53 ,, i , 2()6 :, ~ .. 36 BAN I< F:.:E:C:AF:' :: 15} AN I<: NAM!E BAN K C:HEC: !< :1: t,IC{i AC:(:::C:;!Ji-I' TOTAL. r::d...l... B~::d,IKS I) :1: !L::Bt...IF~SIE{MIEE:!,f'i"S 206 -]"53 36 I, , > .. 206 ;".; .'.5 ;!"" 36 :t. :, :, ,.. i':.:F;-:i:::: F:' :l: I,IAI,IC: :IZ AL S'Y'-':'BTIEM C: ]: 'i"'K (:)F' C (]L JMB T A i--!E: ]Z G!--I"f':E; :i.::~i'.'/2]../"2000 ()'i-;' C-}L540R-.-.VOd., ,, 27 F:'e::i(:')E :!. C'-HEC:K NI..JMIi-:tEEF;; AM(]I...INT :(-Z~ -"> I,I I<: CHE C: K ]: I-iG AC':C:Cl l...I i,I"t" 'I"H[}MF:'SC~N/C:HARL. :t: E BF::C: F:' I I,IP, N "; T A! .S','STEM C I TY (IF:' 'Z}r'~l JMB T A I..1E 12 GI.-!T:::: 21.2/2 i/'20()0 C, 9 Gt... 540R---.V06., 2:7' !::'~;GEZ 2 BAt, i K VliiSI,!DOF;," (]:HEE2C I< !'-iUMBE]:;,' AM(]LIhI'T' B(-':II,! I< []:HiE]Z: I< ]; i,-ll]il i)E~:t...TA DE]'..IT{'L. F:' I F;.:S'T' C(:]MM!.jl,! I TY 2F;,'F:;D ]' T U i CMA F;.'.EE;'I" MI'..I (:;HI I...D '-ii~UF:'F:'OF;,'T F:'P, YMtENT I,ICF:'IiE:F;.:!iE GF;..'OL.IF:' i... I F:'!E I I'--IS '."~":i;' 1,10F;.:I.:JtEST BPd,IK .... F:'P, YF;.:OL.i... r:.', OF;:E:HAF;,'D 'T'F:,'U:.:EE;T COMF:'Af'--IY F:" E; F;,' F;,'AM:EEi;i)Ei;!...!... SCi-.I[II...ARSHIF:' F:'L.II,t F;,'!!E;I... 212 P,:iE~'T'AF;,' E]"tF:'i...OYIE:'.tE BtEI:tlEE;F." STA?,iDAF;~D I !,!-SUF;-:ANCEE; COMF:'A !...!i,.i I 0i'.! 4"? I,IT"f'F:I':, WA'{ ,,~.;. DEF:'f::iF;:TME],IT OF:' l:;.:tii:Miii:l'.il...lliE; ACCAF:' Blii;i...!...BOY Br::iF;~ S...F:'F:'!...Y ':'d::'l i. B,.."!'(COF;,'F:'ORA'T' ! 0t,I ]:-:'--'F;:ADI...IEYI:;..'!Ei;f::,l... E}.'i:.;T'ATi!E::L-'S I I,IC C'!...AF;.:I< F:'OOD:i!HiEF;.:V!(:2:E; ]:1"-i.22:' COt... HGTS F:' (2 :: E } l',l ',.;' E R G E !: !'.t 'l" C' C' M i"! i...t !'.t :12 iT::: A T 21:0 I".I D t E TZ/VAI... iEE;A(BL.EE: W 21: i-iE C:E)MF:'AN'.,' liE: ;!: DIE !,!/W :I: 1...1... 21: ~'::,M lEE; I<0 B,:~;C KE:!,I F:' iii: F;,' F;: :1: S ./T 0 M (:~ii[~:!',!t..t i i'.-iE F:'AF;-:T'.iiE;/"NAF:'A AUTO (:!H:;-: :1: GGS '---C OO F:'EF;:.& CO 'T "' I ""1"' '""' "' """ ' . ,,... f'U'l.:::,.... ~'~ .r ....... ::, . L. ]2 !:;)L.I(]~:;-: (" f" i~' IF;' Kr'! .,, ::::; I<' '!' /'T'E F;,'F,"Y L.I!::AGL!E: OF:' Mi, i C]:T]:E:."EE~; ]:I'..iS I... 21: IqDGF;,'iEI, I/Hf::,F;:VEY !"IE]EI...I...E:! ;.:/ F:'EF'S i---.COI...P~ .-.-7 UF:' ,,::. ,,, CASH .... JOANNE; BAKE; F:'Iii:TTY C,':-¥EE~,I.-! ....!<r::,F;-:IEI-! M(;)!E!...I... F:'ETT'( C :~.!ii;!..l i',h.::. I:;,';." DI. Jl]iDAI... I .... , H"i 217 LI... F:' [) S "f' M A "..:!E; "!" liE: F;,' - i"'! r::; I t-I (:] F:' F:' I C E!: W F:'F;,'OV :!; DE}-! T '1" :17 'f'!...E: SIEF;,'V :12 C:E'-'[ii; · ::/L (.:,I.. !'T"( L}]:I'tE; & '..:i'~F:'II:;,';.:TS (;:."Wlii:ST (2-[)MMI. JI,! F;~;.":;!'!f: liE: SYS'T'EMS F;:Ei.. 2i2 f::,t'!T E:t'IE:F;:(BY M :l: i'.Ii'IE:Gf:~SC ~:~: -:'.....( '.EEE;AMS ,, T I"! 0 M F:' S 01"t ,/C: 1"t ,'::, R I... :!: E 'i"F;:Cq...i...H(.'::UGIiE;t't S!<! AF;:E:A 89837 :1., 910 ,. 00 "":""::-:'"':"""':"' 8().S ,, :!.6 ,':'i?,9EE 40 3 54 ,. 00 89842 5 780 "..',r~ 89843 24 :, 263 ~"' 8984 5 :!..,, 867.70 89846 8 :!. 0 .. 4() 89847 5.S0 ,. 0() 898/-'-! 8 47. () 0 89849 :!. :L 6 ,, 88 E""""" "== "'~ 643 00 8985:1. ;.:;.~95 .. 63 '"'::~:": :"' 9(). 80 8 9 8 6 0 114., 50 8 9 86 2 21.9 5 89864 177 .. 19 89867 194 ,, 24 898~ 9 2 50 5 89872 163 z < > 1 ()() () () 89878 " 500 ,"',,"~ 8988 :Z' 579 .. 0 () Ed:..'(;:: F' Zi; i,ir::~NC: ;iZ ~'.'-'fi... :ii;Y'..:i~'T'E;!'q C: ;i; 'T'Y (3F:' (:: '3t...LtI'IB ZIl ~':;, !--{iiiZ ][ (}:jF-I "f':iB :L 2/':;Y: :L .,"2.':C~C,O ,"v:, GL. ',:.:,,4OF;,'-.--;./(;~(:}, ";"'~ F:'P~(ZfiE X.:-: ,.'.":'., N I-::: 'v' E: I,I :[) (3 F;.: PIE. F:'!:;,' ,::.lrqr'( !i-..l"f' (:;HE:C: i<: :I: i,l(:!i :-':~(:;[:X:)LJI,! "f' .::: ~.~;' "F ::::~ Y ,'::f 02 .. 0 (':' """"' ':": .... 40? .. ,':.,L'.'.'~ ~i:~ ':':' ::' '::*./:, '1 ~> 55 !.5 ...'.'~ · " ,";r',r;"'.~ '1 ;';"'{ . ":-'.'::.:' :.:P ':.;' E; ? C' /...r:.:;" . 8"'};'89,.'S 75 ,..':1. e~. 8':;,:'.?':.:,>'7 5 :EE~:I. 8 :.'.'~.-'.! ~ . :L , ., E~"'.;~:~iIS".':E.~ ::=?.EE::.':'!; .. 7~ii E?, "? E'. S;":.;' 2 :, 775 "'~"" 87'::;>00 2':8,{:... ~;'(') EP'.:-;":.~;'C~ :!. :L ',::'..'.'~. E?, (-'.r'.,"'.f",,";, :, 77 ....~ :I. 0:1.,"'~ ""-1~ > .'.?-Y-'; :ii~"i~;":3:'O'q. :t. ,':i{~9 ,. 60 :~i~:"'j;'905 f5::;'2 ,. :!. 2"; ,'.'~9':~:'().-:S ../.' '-:];' , ., 2'.' 2 F.,'->c-;,rv':., "'};'0 .. 0/-?, ~.E~'-:-;":;'O.':?) 200 .. O0 Ei: ':.-:;' 909 '7 !, 2'.'-; <..;' 0 .. :E: 9 :EE~':P:;,:' :1. 0 ~:.() .. ':: "' E:':;c":~;' :!. :1. 2"';c'2 ,. 8"::,"~* :1.2 ;':~; 57 ,. 8':.~'? :1. :.':~ 2 :, O"q2 .. t=.=,:::~; 8":;,-"":;;' :I. 4 ',:.~,~E~ ,, 87 8 ? '.:2.1. 5 :1. 25.0 C, """""""' "" 50 (",('~ ',EE~ '? ':};' :1. E~ .:':!; .:f:, ,, 25 E!:':.~;":~;' :i. ':? ',".:,07 ...:..q.'~ E:~ ':? ':};" :2 :t. :1. 02 ,, Od, , ~ y . .~. '.},0 ....:, ::.' ~'; .";. r; ,". ".', ~:/.*.~ :ii'::':.:':":;';':25 :i. :1. ;, ,2 t:: f:':: .. &:-~:'; .':,:':,,"'."'z 1 ~"~"~ 85 f::.::.x;..:':.'7 .LY~:::~;8 ":L :.:~.~':..::'9;:.:.'.'~i~ 2";7., 89929 :L 5./:-.v2' :i..';?/;'i~ 3./2C, O0 ()':i-:' GL. 5/.:.tO!::.>...:J06 ,. 2';;" F'AC-.'i!E 4 CHEE:C: K NL.IP[:E.:E:F(' A{'q{':: L. N"r I!E:L..IEEMIEE:NT Mr::.d:Cr'( ~: :{)S ]: ./C.q..J:():I: TH Ei:9960 1 O0 ,, ()0 .::', ,". ,z, "', ":. 1 . ,500 .. C.C, CHEC: 1< !'-iLIHI-:diE:F;,' ~'d"IC~LtN"f' HE::0TC:!X I...ABC)F;:ATC}F:-: :i: E:S =; :I: !-iE.': HE:t',h::iR'I)!!E.~ C:~'r:¢Ei..;l..!t:3f:-'~YI...UI~tI-:-:tiE:F;,'...-F:' !"IIEE:T!:;.:E) I,,,IEL.I::,:i:NG :Ei!;F:'!::"L.Y i,! :!: i)b,l~:'.~Y I::'C)i:;,'I) !'! :!: L.I..l:>l!:;-: E:t...lii:',.;'v":',."r'Cfi:;,'~:: F:: F;,"v' :I: H :t: I,-I :i: TE:X ....~:.'~ 'f'Tl,-! !'lr::d:;,'Y (3 :'-':11:;~ C: ,'t '~: i--.~F..s l::',:iE C". "f'r:':'~:t::-: E:i~:~F;,' :!: !'--l C.'i E:: E:!H F:'r.:~N H :E I',fl,-!E::iiE;C)T~'::~(:::E)t'--;t:,!t-"--gY F:' :i: F;,'E: Ht :I: NNE:'..:Ei;CfT'~'r:',,C::(::fi...II'..!T Y H :I: t'..Ii'..IE::Ei~,(3 'f'f::l:()E:F:'~'::sF;,' 'f'l'ilEE:t'-l'f' (:)I::' H :E 'i"E:L. i"ii-.iC:H :t: E:F:".EE~C)F:' F:'C)L. :1: CE t"!!',i:OE:F:'T C)I::' ~:':'d)H :i: t'.1 :E '.EE~"fF;:~::'Uf :E C) l"lt,.li:)E:F:"f'C)!=' F;,'E:VE:I-,iLJE: i,'ii'..[F' :i: F;.'.E%E:F;,'V :I: E::t!E: C':E:F;,"'f :i: F:' 3: C': I"II.'::fi:;:F;:IEE:I...I...& !~il.':)F;,"I:;,'IiE:I...!... :I:!'--IC: i'..i~:':':"!"!... r--.'I.'..'EE;%!.':) C}I::' "f'C'fiJN !',h'~'Y'C) r--'~ ~'-IC)F;,'TH %"f,~'-'fi:;.'. :1: C::E: i,-i (:)F;,' T H E: f::l S 'f' iiE: t:;,' !::)I::' F:' :I: (:::lEE: I) E:F:'C'fT C) L.!... :t: E: '3 !< :!: 'i" C':H E:t-,I & %; :t: T'f'L.E: E)i...%!:::!!',! ' % F:'!...I..Jl,'IE.: :i: E:fi',IV(:)Y (:) i:;,' !< :i: F:"C:: %C)i...t..IT :!: i::'E:F:'% :!:--.-IZ:Z:OL.(.':-~---.7 UF:' I::'!!E:I:;~f:.~ F:'C)L.:I:CE F;:E:L.:I:Ei::' CC)N%C) F:' !--! :!: L.. I... :I: F:' % I;,l :i: i',i E: & % F:' :E F;,' 'i" F:' :t: !'--! I<E:F;-'.TI.':)I--.I %IL::F;:%,' :l: (:::lEE: !.':iiF;~l.'3Ul=' i::'L.LjN t<!EE:TT ' ~EEE;, :I: I',IE:: F:' F;.: :E (:) F;: L,,i :Ij NE: !:;,' F;,' :E.:E)I, dt<t~E:F;,' I:;..' r:.~ :O :I:CI .'.'L~H~::iCi< i:;.: H Y 'Y'F-i !"1% i:;.'.(:)Yr:~!.,. C:Ot',tC:!:;.'.E:'f'E: F:' :i: F:'E: :l: NC:: F;-.' t.J IEi: "f' "f :i: i"i ,:~ I'-1 i'-! / F;-: C) .:(..'-: E: F;,' T !EE;(:)(:.': :i: EjTY (:)F:' I'iUI',I :I: C: :[: F:'~'::d.../'f'HE: !EE;F:'E:i:.': :I: (~'fi... C.'IF:'Ei:F;..'~.'-'UY' :!: (:)!',i.'..Ei; "f'F;,'r.":~ :1: !',I ~iE; F:' F;,' :1: !'-i !::-:; S T lEE: :0 % 'i" IEE: E t... "f' E: C: i-.! :I: I',i C: ~EEi; TF;:E: :1: CHEF;,' !.':.:i l..Jt,,i ' .S :t: i',iC:/):)C)i,-I '-E!~;Y%TE:I"I% '..:EE;UPi-':'L.Y :I: i',IC:., "f'f-">d:;,'l::.:iE:T STC)F;,'i!E:'.Ei~---.~::~C:C:T'.:.E~ I:;:E:C.: 'Y' :!:----Zr.:'iC:: f<: E:: Cfi',I C: F;,' E: "f' E: ~, :E t'-IC 'i"b,,i :i: i'-i I.':.': :!: 'Y'Y 'Y'F;,'r::iI',i.':'i.:;F:'E:iF;Ef' & F;,'E: L if',! :I: TE: :0 F;:. E: I'-i "f' i'.':~ L..% !iq:::(Z: F:' ! NANC I AL.. SY:ii-ZT'EZM C: i 'T'Y OF:' COL..UMB I A HE I GH "I"S 2/'21/2000 r'v:-'.:, GL. 54()R-V06 '::"":/ F:' ~ GE -* :L ?./?7 COi. J!',If.:; :i: l... !... :i:-S'T' ]: NG C':HEC K i,iL.iMBIEF;,' r.:',,MOUNT :(..'q'.':lM I<.' CHEC I< :i: NG I':>ff:.':COI. J{'.j'T' L.t N :1: V liE: F;: S i '1" Y 0 !::' t"! 5!: N ?'i IEE: S 0 'i" A L.IN :!: VE:F;;S :l: 1"Y OF:' M :l: I'ii'IESC)TA I. JF;,'S :(': F;,' b, :I: lqC: LJ S F:' :i: I... 'i" E i:;-'. / W A T E FR F:' R 0 WAH1...S EE:N'T'Ii{F;..'F:'F:,' :I: '.EEi;E:S I.:,i :I: NE: (:::CIMF:'f.':d',!Y,/THIE WOL.I'IE'r jR .... IE!...E:C:/T!",CLYh::riEi; W(:]F;,'I...D C:t...,:"ISS L,! :!: I"-IE .,.ll,.J tZS}:;.:r..':/:]: l',!Glii:F;,' XF:'!ii:(::: T F:' ! I:;~ST ~::~ :1: D Z :I: IEG I...E F;.: :!: i',!,r::: 90024 180.00 90025 225 ,. 00 90026 48,342 .. 16 90027 5 :, 744 .. 59 90028 2,247 .. 15 90029 62 :L .. 06 90()30 50 ,, 00 9003:1. :1.35 .. 00 90C>32 515 ,. 30 90033 2:32 .. 35 90034 60 .. 73 CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: December 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: PRESENTATIONS ~O: ITEM: PRESENTATION BY DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. NO: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER ' S CITY MANAGER ' S APPROVAL BY: LIND12A 2L. : DATE: - 1- Attached is an Executive Summary, prepared by Decision Resources, Ltd., of the results of the community survey they conducted. Bill Morris of Decision Resources, Ltd. will be at the council meeting of December 27, 2000, to make a detailed presentation of the findings. A final report will be submitted to the city shortly thereafter. COUNCIL ACTION: Decision Resources Ltd. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of Columbia Heights Mttla odolog~ : This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 400 randomly selected residents of the City of Columbia Heights. Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers across the community between October 24 and November 6, 2000. The average interview took twenty- three minutes. In generaJ, random samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire universe of adult Columbia Heights residents within ± 5.0 percentage points in 95 out of 1 O0 Residential Demogralilcs: Columbia Heights is a mature, generally stable community, with a rather small element of transicnce, seen mostly among a segment ofyoungcr rcntcrs. The median longevity of adult residents was 13.6 years. Twelve percent ofthe sarnp]e reported moving to the city during the past two years, whiJe thirty-seven percent had been there For over two decades. Twcmy-four percent of the households contained seniors; in fact, twelve percent of the households were composed entirely of seniors. Twenty-eight percent of the households contained school-aged ohildrcn and/or pre-schoolers. Seventy-five percent owned their current residences, while twenty-five percent rented. The average age ofrespondents was 46,2 years old. While twenty-four percent of the sample fell imo the 18-34 year age range, twenty-two percent were at least 65 years old. The median household income was calculated at $44,750.00 annually. Ten percent reported household incomes under $25,000.00, while ten percent posted annual incomes over $75,000.00. Twenty-six percent of the respondents reported their household heads worked at Blue Collar jobs. Twenty-eight percent ofthe residences were headed by holders ofupscale White CoUar jobs -- either Professional-Technical or Owner-Manager. Retirees led twenty-four percent of the households in the city. Another sixteen percent reported Clerical-Sales people as household heads. Residents were classified according to the precinct in which they lived. Fifty-three percent resided 3128 I.)ean COurl · MinneapOliS. Mir ~rleSola 5541 fi · {612) 920-0337 · Fax 46 12)929 6166 in Precincts 1-3 & 5, while forty-nine percent lived in Precincts 4 & 6-8. Women and men were equally rcprescmcd in the sample. Quality of Life Ratings: A moderate eighty-four percent rated the quality of life as either "excellent" or "good;" only fourteen percent rated it as "excellent." Sixteen percent posted "only fair" or "poor" ratings, with only one percent in the latter category. Seventy-nine p~rcent thought the City was generally headed "in the right direction," while fifteen peroont disagreed. Disagrccmom stemmed from the perceptions of "poor government decisions," "undesirable businesses moving to the community," and "slow response to change." Lihe Most and Least about tlte Community: "Location" was the most liked feature of the city. At tiCtry-five percent, it outdistanced al/other responses. Nineteen percent pointed to "nice people," while twelve percent valued the "small town ambience." Just behind, eight percent mentioned "quiet and peacefulness." Srna/ler percentages posted "safety," "good city services,' "afirordablc housing," and "stability." In thinking about serious issues facing the dty, there proved to be two major concerns. Seventeen percent pointed to "crime," while eleven percent worried about the "redevelopment of Central Avenue." Nine percent worried about "rundown areas," while eight percent cited 'slow income housing," and seven percent, "need for more businosses." Six percent mentioned "City Council decisions" sad five percent said "quality of s~hools.' Smaller numbers cited "hiBh taxes," "lack of activities for children," and s'traflic oongestion.' Four percent of the residents, however, saw "no major issues" facing Columbia HeiBhts at this time. City Character and Issues: In evaluating a number of characteristics of the community, a plurality of residents reported the city currently had "about the right number or amount" of each one; on average, forty-nine percent of the community cxprcssccl satisfaction on each characteristic. But, thcrc wcrc sizablc minorities on seven of the characteristics which indiesled some dissatisfaction with the sta1~s quo. Significant numbers of residents thought there were '`too many" rental units and "too many" low income housing opportunities, even though pluralities saw "about the right number." Similarly, significant numbers of residents thought there were "too few" upper bracket housing opportunities, '"too few" condominiums and townhouses, "too few" senior housing opportunities, and "too few" light manufacturing and heavy manufacturing industries, while the plurality on each Page 2 characteristic expressed satisfaction. On only one dimension, parks and open spaces, did a contented majority ofrespondents report there was "about the right amount_" Cily Taxes and Sen, ices: A large number of residents were unable to guess the percentage of the property tax earraarked for the City of-Columbia Heights. Among the t~fiy-flve percent offering an answer, the median estimate was 21 3%, somewhat below the actual 24% level. A solid sixty-two percent of the residents rated the value of city services --their quality versus their cost -- as "excellent" or "good;" thirty-four pro'cent rated it lower. In fact, when asked about the property taxes in Columbia Heights compared with nearby areas, only nineteen percent felt they were "high," while fifty-seven percent reported they were "about average." In evaluating specific city services, seven received very high favorable ratings exceeding eighty percent: snow plowing, police service, fire protection, park and recreation, sewer and water, animal control, and street lighting in business areas. The remainder received solid favorable ratings of between seventy and eighty percent: city street repair and maintenance, drainage and flood control, library services, and street lighting in residential areas. Viewing the ra~ings from a different perspective, only two services received unfavorable ratings exceeding twenty-five percent: street lighting in residential areas and city street repair and maintenance. "Potholes," "slow service," and '~too few street lights" motivated most of the negative ratings of these services. City Government and City Staff.' A moderately large sixty-four percent felt they could have an impact of the way things were mn in Columbia Heights, twenty-eight percent felt they could not. Among this latter group, only one- half actually felt they would be ignored by City Hall. Overall, then, this level of perceived empowermeat was well above the suburban area norm. Columbia Heights residents. then, were feeling connected to their local decision-makers. l-'orty-eight percent reported having a "great deal" or "fair amount" of knowledge about the work of the Mayor and City Council. A solid ~t~y-three percent either "strongly approved" or "approved' of their job, while eighteen percent registered "disapproval." Positive ratings were based upon the perception of a good job, willingness to listen to citizens, and lack of city problems; critics pointed to an unwillingness to listen, perception of a poor job, and disagreement with City Council decisions. Thirty-three percent reported having cornact with the Columbia Hcights City Staff. A solid fifty- six percent rated the staff as "excenent" or "good," while sixteen percent rated them Iowa. Positive ratings were based upon staff helpfulness, staff job performance, friendliness, and lack of problems; negative ratings stemmed from laok of helpfulness and room for improvement. During the past year, fifty percent had either contacted City Hall, either by telephone or in-person. Five Departments received over two-thirds of the contacts; Police Department, Public Works, Building Inspections, Library, and Fire Department. In rating the last contaa with respect to aspects of customer service, eighty-seven percent rated the waiting fox: the Information Desk operator to respond to them as either "excellent" or "good." Ninety percent rated the courtesy of the Information Desk receptionist as "excellent" or "good." Eighty-two percent highly rated the ease of reaching a Department stall'member who could help them. Ninety-one percent rated the courtesy of the Depaa'dnent Staff as either "excellent" or "good," while eighty-five percent similarly related the staff's efficiency highly. All of these scores proved above the threshold for the provision of ~'high quality customer service." Sixteen percent reported their request was handled by leaving a voice mail message; eighty-eight percent said they received a timely response. Development and Redevelopmeat Issues: Residents were pleased with the appearance of their neighborhood. Eighty-three percent rated it as either "excellent" or "good," while sixteen percent were more critical. As a result, it was not surprising that seventy-one percent thought the enforcement level of city codes and ordinances was 'Gabout fight .' Twenty percent felt it was "not tough enough," while a small five percent saw enforcement as "too exacting." Most of the existing criticism focused on the enforcement of yard and property codes. Sixty-eight percent reported they were aware that governments, such as the City of Columbia Heights, had the power of "eminent domain." Thirty-one percent, though, indicated they were unaware of that power. Residents, though, split on the use of "eminent domain" by a local government body: thirty-seven percent opposed its use, twenty-seven percent supported its use, and thirty-one percent reported their support would depend upon the particular situation. In assessing the potential use of "eminent domain" in four areas of the community, residents posted majorities in favor in each case. By a 69°/~- 19e/~ judgment, they supported its use '`to get nd of blighted properties and areas in the Downtown area." By a 59%-26% verdict, residents supported the use of eminent domain "to assemble land to redevelop areas along Central Avenue" Similarly, by a 56%-21P/5 margin, respondeats fitvoted its use "for redevelopmeat of Downtown." And, finally, by a 50%-34% judgment, residents supported the use of eminent domain "to create a larger tax based by redeveloping the city's industrial area," In discussing Downtown Columbia Heights, fifteen percent reported they liked most the "convemience" of the area. "New development," &t eleven percent, and "shoppinE oppormnitie%" at ten percent, ranked next. Smaller numbers pointed to "restaurants," "ample parking," "new Page 4 gas station," "bus routes," "movie theater," "new bank," "cleanliness," and "small town ambience." Bin, fourteen percent reported there was "nothing" they liked about the Downtown Area. "Rundown and dirty condition" was the aspect twenty-eight percent liked least about the Downtown Area. "Empty buildings," at twelve percent, and "traffic congestion," at ten percent, ranked next. "Lack of stores" followed at seven percent. Fewer residents pointed to '~too many fast food drive-ins," "poor roads, .... bleak shopping mall, .... poorly designed bus hub," and "lack of safety." Howevcr, nine percent disliked "nothing" about this area of the community. In priorirazing new development in the Downtown Area, twenty-three percent suggested "retail opportunities," while fifteen percent cited "nice restaurants." Nine percent thought "additional service providers" would make an excellent addition. Smaller numbers urged "a hardware store,' "more entertainment and theaters, .... family-friendly businesses," "light industrial opportunities," "a community center," and "small shops." In reacting to a list of potential development projects for the Downtown Area, eighty percent urged the City to attract "quality sit-don restaurants," while seventy-seven percent felt the same way about "family-slyle restam'ants." Scvcnty-thre¢ percent wanted the City to pursue '%vomen's dothang stores," while seventy-one percent each urged "a library building," "men's clothing gores," and %hildren's clothing stores." Between sixty and seventy percent supported attracting "a police and public safety building," "a sports bar or dining establishment, like Applebee's," "coffee shops," "electronics stores," and "sporting good stores." On only one potential development, "second-hand or thrift stores," did a majority oppose its attraction to the Downtown Area. Other retail stores suggested by moderate numbers of residents included "department stores" and "hobby and craft stores." By a tony-six percent to thirty-six percent margin, residents opposed a more consistent appearance for on-building advertising if it might cause es?~blishments already there to relocate or discourage new businesses from coming, Those most opposed did not want any other impediments placed on retail development in the Downtown Area. Two areas were cited by a combined majority as their pzincipal rctail shopping locations, excluding grocery and gasoline purchases: "Target in F~dley," by thirty percent, and "Rosedale," by twenty-two percent. "Northtown," ill ten percent, and "K-Mart in Columbia Heights," at nine percent, attracted a moderate number of households. Smaller numbers cited "Brookdale," · 'Herberger's in New Brighton," "Horizon Drugstore," "Walgreens in Columbia Heights," "Columbia Heights Mall," and "Downtown Minneapolis." Two gwcevy stores were exceptionally popular with residents: fifty-eight percent regularly purchased ~roeeries at "Rainbow in Columbia tlei~ts," while twenty-six percent went to "Cub in the Apache Mall." Smaller numbers regularly shopped at "Cub in Fridiey" and "Bycrly's at Roscdalc ." Page Sixty-five percent reported they were either "very familiar" or "somewhat familiar" with the Industrial Park located in the area south of Huset Park and east of University Avenue. ThinT-six percent, though, were either "not too familiar' or "not at all familiar" with it. Residents splh on the general appearance of the Industrial Park: forty-one percent rated it as either "excellent" or "good," while thirty-seven percent saw it as "only fair" or "poor." Twenty-two percent were uncertain about its appearance. A solid sixty-five percent would support the redeveloprecur of the Industrial Park to attract more commercial and light industrial development there. Only thirteen percent reported opposition, while twenty-three percent were uncenNn Seventy-seven percent of the households containing seniors reported awareness of rent.assisted senior housing available in ~he City of Columbia Heights But, only twenty-one percent of these households reported they used any senior programs and services available in the City. Even so, among the small number of users, an impressive nincty-five percent reported satisfaction with their experience. Public Safely Issues: A high thirty-one percent thought there were areas in the community where they did not feel safe, with the concern centered on Central Avenue, I-ltlhop, and the Minneapolis border. Two safety concerns dominated from a list of six problems: "juvenile crime and vandalism," at twenty-six percent, and "speeding cars," at twenty-four perecru. "Burglary and other residential crime" followed at eighteen percent. Consistent with these results, while ~tty-seven percent felt there was "about the fight amount" of patrolling by the police department in their neighborhood, twenty-seven percent saw it as "not enough." !~tergo~emme~t~l Issues: Residents rated the quality of the Columbia Heights Pubtic Schools very highly: sixty-five percent thought it was either "excellent" or "good," while only sixteen percent saw it as "only fair" or "poor." Twenty-three percent were unsure of the quality of education provided by the School By an overwhelming 73%-$% margin, residents favored the Cities of Columbia HeiShts and Hilltop cooperating more in the provision of services and issues of mutual interest. In fact, twen~/-four percent "strongly favored" greater cooperation between the two municipalities. Conmmnicatton Systems: Local newspapers, particularly the "Focus" and the "Northeaster," were regarded as the principal source of information about city government and activities by fii~y-eight percent of the sample. P~ge 6 The "City Newsletter" was similarly rated by nine percent, while city mailings and meetings were cited by eight percent. Fourteen percent relied upon the "grapevine," while nine percent mentioned "cable television." fithey could choose the means through .which they received information, thirty-three percent wanted a "mailed newsletter." "Local newspapers" were preferred by thirty-four percent. "Cable television" was mentioned by ten percent, while "meetings" were preferred by five percent, and the "grapevine" languished at six percent. Seventy-nine percent recalled receiving the quarterly newsletter from Columbia Heights, "Heights Happening." Sixty-five percent of those residents reported reading at least "some of it.' And, of those who recalled the publication, eighty percent rated its format, content, and appearance as either "excellent" or "good;" eighteen percent were more critical in their judgments. Sixty percent of the households were current subscribers to cable television. Among subscribers, eighteen percent "frequently" watched Columbia Heights City Council Meetings, and thirty-one percent did so "occasionally." Sixty percent of the rcspondents had access to a modem-equipped computer, either at home or at work; while fifty percent had access at home, ten percent reported access only at the workplace. Among those with internet connections, thirteen percent had accessed the City of Columbia Height' s website For information about city services, news, and evenis. Seventy-seven percent found the site easy to use, while seven percent disagreed. Sixty percent were able to find the information they were looking for, while twenty percent were not able to do so. In general, forty-seven percent rated their current level of information about city government and community activities as either "excellent" or "good-" But, fifty-two percent rated their level as "only fair" or "poor." Information gaps, then, proved to be higher than the norm among Columbia Heights residents. Conclusions and Implications: Columbia Heights residents clearly separate their general view of the City into two compartments. As a place to live, residents rated the quality of life solidly and viewed thei~ neighborhvods as generally strong and well-kept. The major threat they see with respect to these aspects of city life was crime. In part this is due to the community' s proximity to Minneapolis, but it is also resulting ~'om the perception that specific arm of the community outside residential neighborhoods have become rundown and thus semingly threatening. However, as a place to shop, work, and recreate, residents rated these aspects far more critically. They saw a need for significant economic rcdcvelopmcnt in several key areas: Central Avenue, the Downtown Area, and the Industrial Park. If actions on this front arc not taken in the future, many residents see an explicitly linked threat to the continued vitality of residential neighborhoods. Residents generally possessed a positive view of city services and taxes. The activities the City Pale 7 undertakes to insure livability were rated uniformly highly, and seen by many as a good value when compared to the property taxes they paid. The only major suggestion for improvements included a plea for more street lights in residential areas and speedier actions on potholes. P, esidents awarded the Mayor and City Council and the City Staff solid strong performance ratings. In fact, contact with City Hall was viewed by most residents as a positive experience; quality customer service ratings were posted on each aspect of contact, from the Information Desk Operator to the Department Staff member handling the question or request. While there were some misgivings about the concept and use of eminent domain by local governments, majorities of residents supported an activist approach to redevelopment in the areas of Downtown, Central Avenue, and the Industrial Park. They endorsed the active pursuit by the City of quality restaurants, clothing stores, and a librap/building in the Downtown Area. Citizens also overwhelmingly favored guided redevciopment of the Industrial Perk Area. Overall, residents saw the need for more targeted and aggressive action in modernizing and rebuilding rundown commercial areas in the community. Communications by the City to its citizenry appeared very inclusive. The combined reach of both local newspapers and the city newsletter were comparatively larl~e. Cable television provided a another augmentation, while computer processes may be a further fi~ture enlmncement worth consideration. But, there was still room for sharpening the focus of the communications, since more than one-half of the residents expressed doubts about their current level of knowledge concerning city government and community activities. The City of Columbia Heights rated well in comparison with suburban communities in the Northwest Metropolitan Area. And, given the reservoir of goodwill already existent between the City and the residents, those ratings should continue to hold steady. Future improvements, though, will be based upon progress on two fTonts: first, commercial and industrial redevelopment activities; and second, public safety improvemenls. Perceived positive actions in both ofthese areas would significantly improve quality of life ratings. PaRe 0 0 0 o ~ III 1'- o~ 0 n~ E ,.nr' ~oo 8 0 o o o ~ o o z = :E C:) CO Oo ~oo ,m o 0.~ n~ 0 0 0 0 CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of December 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: NO: ITEM: NO: ORIGINATING CITY {.0'/~ DEPARTMENT: MANAGER Fire APPROVAL Close Hearing Rental License Revocation BY: Dana Alexon DATE: December 20, 2000 DATE: The matter of the revocation of the license to operate a rental unit(s) within the City of Columbia Heights against Steve Anderson regarding rental property at 4421 5th Street for failure to meet the requirements of the Residential Maintenance Codes was previously scheduled to commence at the City Cotmcil meeting of December 27, 2000. The public hearing on this property may now be closed in that the owner is trying to sell the house and the house is currently vacant. The house is no longer considered rental property. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Close the Public Hearing Regarding the Revocation or Suspension of the Rental License Held by Steve Anderson Regarding Rental Property at 4421 5th Street in that the Property is not considered rental property as defined by the Residential Maintenance Code. COUNCIL ACTION: COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: December 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: NO: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER' S '1 - C - ~ Community Development APPROVAL BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: In 1982, the City of Columbia Heights, NEI College of Technology, and Independent School District 13 entered into agreements to establish roadway easements on property generally extending west from Jackson Street and through the parking lot south to 41 st Avenue and west of the NEI building. The easements were established for roadway purposes (Doc.No. 596930) and utility and public road purposes (Doc.No. 328271 ). The attached Amendment to Easement Agreement removes any easement over the referenced properties for roadway purposes. A deed will be prepared granting a new roadway easement to the City of Columbia Heights extending 10 feet on either side of the centerline from Jackson Street to 41st Avenue N.E. The necessary drainage and utility easements on the effected properties will be maintained as approved in the Final Plat and grant additional easement rights to allow access to any utility lines existing within these easements and for drainage purposes. Attached are copies of two Amendment to Easement Agreements and a copy of a portion of the Final Plat showing the effected areas. ITEM: Approve Amendment to Easement Agreements with NEI College of Technology. RECOMMENDATION: The City Attorney has met with staff and legal counsel for NEI College of Technology and the Columbia Heights Transition Block, LLC and recommends approval of the documents as presented. MOTION: Move to approve the Amendment of Easement Agreement for Document No. 328271 and Amendment for Easement for Document No. 596930 as presented in writing; and furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same. Attachments COUNCIL ACTION: h:\CL consent\Approve Amendments to Easement 60 t;': [ NORTHWESTERN 2ND ,~ AVEEN:,.~E: 12/~I/t~18 17:38 OPPENHEIMER LAW -~ ?63 ?06 3671 N0.409 P81~2/011 AMI, NDMENT TO EASEMENT THIS AMENDMENT TO EASEMENT is made this __ day of January, 2001, by and between The City of Columbia Heights, a municipal corporation under laws of the State of Minnesota ("The City"), and NEI College of Technology, a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota CNEI"). WHEREAS, NEI is the fcc owner of certain real propeay located in Anoka County, Minnesota (the "Premises") legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, Northwestern Addition. WHEREAS, Independent School District No. 13, ~ predecessor-in-interest to NEI, granted to The City an casement for public road purposes and the installation of utilities and for the construction and ~.s. intmxancc of a warmmain on ccrtain portions of the Premises as evidenced by the insmuncnt dated July 1t0, 1969 and recorded in the Office of the P, zgistcr of Deeds, Anoka County, Minnesota on October 14, 1969 as Document No. 328271 (the "Easement"); and WHEREAS, The City and NEI desire to amend the Easement to elimin~.te the all references to the grant of easement fights for public rc~d purposes from the Easement and to add the grant of casement rights for stormwater drainage; NOW, TIIER!CFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby a~knowlcdged, The City and NEI do hereby al~ree to amend the Easement as follows: 1 ) All references to "public road purposes" shall be deleted from the Easement, 2) The Want of the easement is deletai in its entirety and the following is substituted in its place: An casement for the installation of utilities and maintenance thereof, watermain construaion and maintenance thawf, as may be deemed ncccssary, and for sierrawater drainage, over and under the North twenty-five (25) feet of Lot Eight (8) and all of Lot Seven (7), Block Forty (40); 12/~/00 17:~ OPPENHEIMER LAW ~ 76~ 706 [~671 N0.409 P88Z~/011 An easement for utilities construction and maintenance thereof, watermain construction and maimr. nance thereof and for stormwater drainage over and under the North Ten (10) feet of the South Twenty (20) feet of Lot Fifteen (15), Block Forty (40); All in Columbia Heights Anna to Minneapolis, according to the duly recorded map or plat thereof on f-de and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Anoka CounW, State of Minnesota. 3) Except as specifically modified hereby, the Easement shall continue in full force and effect, enforceable in accordance with its Zrrns. This Amendment to Easenlent and each and every pan hcreof sl~ be binding upon the parties he~to, their heirs, rq~esentativcs, successors and assigns and on future owners of the Premises and shall nm with the land. iN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hetcto have caused this Amendment to Easement to executed as of die date and year first above written. NE! COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, Minnesota nonprofit corporation STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing inslrmnent was acknowledged before me this __ by the COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, a nonprofit corporalion under 'the Minnesota, on behalf of the ~tion. day of January, 2001 of NEI laws of the State of Notary Public 12/L:::~P'~I] 17:31 OPPE:NHEIf'~ER LAW + ~ ?B6 3671 N0.409 PBfi4/OI1 THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, Minnesota municipal corporation By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this__ day of January, 2001 by the of THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, a municipal coxpotation Under the laws of ~he State of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation. Notnry P~tblic THIS DOCUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Oppenheizner Wolff& DonneHy, LLP PIn VII 45 South Scvcnth Street, Suite 3300 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 TC3:?16328 12/2g/00 17:31 OPPENHEIMER LRW ~ 76~ 706 3671 N0.409 PB05/011 12/~1~1~ 17::33 OPf:~!~:I'41-1EIMER LAW + ~ 706 ::2~571 N0,409 P01~,/011 **~ 17:38 OPPENHEIMER LAW + ?6_3 ?06 3671 ND.409 PBI~?/011 AMENDMENT TO EASEMENT THIS AMENDMENT TO EASEMENT is made this __ day of January, 2001, by and between The City of Columbia Heighxs, a municipal corporation under laws of the State of Minnesota (''The City"), and NEI College of Tedmology, a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesma ("NEI'). WHEREAS, NEI is the fee owner of certain teal property located in Anoka County, Minnesota (the "Premises") legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, Northwestern Addition. WHETS, Independent School D/suia No. 13 and NEI, granted to The City an easement for roadway purposes on certain portions of the Prem~ as evidenced by the inslnunean dated September 3, 1982 and recorded in the O~ of the Register of Deeds, Andca County, Minnesota on Septumber 7, 1982 as Document No. 596930 (the: "Easement"); and WHEREAS, The City and NEI desire to amend the Easement to eliminate the all referezw~s to the grant of easement rights for roadway purposes from the Easement and to add the grant of easement fights for the installation and maintenance of utilities and for stormwater drainage; NOW, THIREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, The City and NEI do hereby agree to amend the Easement as follows: 1) All references to "roadway p~" shall be dclcxcd from the Eascmcnt. 2) The grant of the easement is deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in its placc: An easement for the installation of utilities and maintenance thereof, including, but not limited to water lines, and for stormwater dralna~ ovel' a!ld 1alder the Wes~ |0.00 feet of Lots 8 through 15, Block 40, Columbia I-Ieigh~s Annex to Minneapolis. according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Cotmty Recorder in and for Anoka County, State of Minnesola, 12/2g/00 17:42 OPPENHEIMER LAW + '?63 ?06:3671 N0.409 P1~8/011 3) The City agm:s that it shall, in the installation and maintcnancc of the utilities, repair or replace any landscaping, drivcways or other improvements damaged or removed in connection with such installation and/or maintenance to as nearly as possible the same condition as befon: such inslallntion and/or maintenance. 4) Except as specifically modified hereby, the Easement shall continue in ~uli force and effect, enforceable in accordance with its letms. 5) This Amendment tO Easo~ont and each and every pafi hereof shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, representatives, successors and assigns and on future owners of the Premises and shall run with the land. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties ben:to have caused this Amendment to Easement to be executed as of the date and year first above written. NEI COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, Minncsotn nonprofit corporation By: Its: STATE OF IVl]NNESOTA ) )SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing ins'munent was acknowledged before me this by the COLLEGE 'OF TECHNOLOGY, a nonpro~! corporation under the Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation. day of January, 2001 of NEI laws of the State of Norm7 Public 12/2{~12)8 17:42 ~IMER LAW + '?63 706 3671 N0.409 PE)1)9/011 THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, Minnesota municipal corporation B~: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF ) The foregoing inslrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of January, 2001 by the of THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, a municipal corporation under the laws of'lh~ Slate of Minnesola, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public THIS DOCUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Oppenheimer Wolff& DonneHy, LLP Plaza VII 45 South Seven& Street, Suite 3300 Minneapolis, Minneso~ 55402 TC3,' 716402 vOl 12/20/2000 1~0/00 17:42 OPPENHEIMER LAW -~ ?63 ?06 3671 N0.409 P010/011 12/L::~ 17:49 OPPENHEIMER Lts~d -> ?6>3 986 3691 N0.409 P011/011 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: December 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: Other Business ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S NO: 7- C - '2_ Community Development APPROVAL ITEM: Approve Amendment to Contract for BY: Kenneth Anderson ,I Y~~~o~ Private Development-Metro Assemblies DATE: December 21, 2000 ~ - /9/ BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: City staff, our legal counsel and financial advisors have been some time reviewing the status of our pay-as-you-go tax increment financing districts. We have one pay-as-you- go agreement with Robert and Priscilla Bamick dba Metro Assemblies. This analysis was deemed necessary to verify the amounts of tax increment due to Metro Assemblies, particularly in light of the tax rate compressions occurring these past several years. At the work session on December 18, 2000, staff requested City Council discussion regarding the shortfalls in the TIF agreement with Metro Assemblies. We have attached for your review and background information suggested amendments to the Contract for Private Development with Metro Assemblies as well as letters from Dan Greensweig dated February 21, 2000 and December 5, 2000 and the TIF Cashflow analysis dated August of 2000 and January 17, 2000. Specifically, it appears that there is a shortfall in the amount of TIF payments available to pay Metro Assemblies. This is due to the compression in the tax rates, an error on the part of Metro Assemblies consultants at the time that the TIF district was established, Anoka County errors in establishing the proper net tax capacity, and previous years overpayments made by the City to Metro Assemblies. Essentially, Mr. Bamick is requesting through his legal counsel, Bill O'Brien, that the City absorb the projected future shortfall by not recovering the full $60,000 the City was owed for property it sold to the HRA for later transfer to the Barnick's. They are suggesting that a property tax abatement be established which would abate the City's share of taxes on the Bamick's property for a period of up to ten years after the TIF district expires. Alternatively, the City has agreed to amend the Contract to extend the term of the Contract from 2011 to 2019. This will allow the City to be fully repaid for land acquisition costs from TIF proceeds and approximately $39,994 to be paid to Metro Assemblies based on the January, 2000 Cashflow estimates. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approval of the amendment to the TIF Contract prepared by the City/EDA's legal counsel, Dan Greensweig. Furthermore, Mr. Greensweig has indicated Mr. Barnick is in agreement with this approach. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the proposed First Amendment to the Contract for Private Development between the HRA, City of Columbia Heights, and Robert C. Barnick and Priscilla A. Barnick dba Metro Assemblies; and furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transactions and are approved by the officials authorized to execute these documents, provided that execution of the documents by such officials is conclusive evidence of their approval. Attachments COUNCIL ACTION: h:\CL consent\Approve Amendment to Contract for Private Dev. From: "Greensweig, Daniel J." <dgreensweig@Kennedy-Graven.com> To: "'wjo@mcmlaw.com'" <wjo@mcmlaw.com>, "Ken Anderson (E-mail)" <ken .anderson@ci .columbia-heights.mn .us> Date: 12/21/00 1:38PM Bill O'Brien Mackall Crounse & Moore Ken Anderson Columbia Heights EDA Gentlemen: Attached is a draft of an amendment to the Barnick agreement. It is relatively short and, I hope, clear, but there are a couple of things I should note. First, I have attached a new assessment agreement to replace the previous one. This seemed easier than trying to amend the previously recorded assessment agreement, particularly as the format of these documents have changed somewhat since 1995. Second, I have eliminated the repayment agreement as a separate document and replaced it with a new Section 5.3. It is far less the practice now than it was 5 years ago to use a separate document in a situation that does not involve assignment of a note, and it strikes me as much easier to reduce the number of different agreements pertaining to a development. Section 5.3 captures my understanding of the decisions made at this week's work session, but please review the terms carefully and if I am incorrect, let me know. Keep in mind that this amendment needs to be approved by the EDA and the City. Given the timing, my guess is that it will be approved "subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transactions and are approved by the officials authorized to execute these documents, provided that execution of the documents by such officials is conclusive evidence of their approval." We will therefore likely have an opportunity to make minor changes after its review by the EDA and City, but any significant revisions will need to either be discussed by the EDA and City before those bodies vote, or the agreement will have to be returned to them for reconsideration if the changes take place after the agreements have first been approved. In that vein, I wan to explain that while I have read over this amendment, I have, in light of the packet deadline of this afternoon, not proofed it as thoroughly as usual and therefore reserve the right to re-read it and make appropriate changes (although I am virtually certain that anything along this line would be at most, very minor). I look forward to any other comments or questions you might have. I hope to be out of the office next week, but will be checking my voicemail regularly and can get back to you by telephone. Sincerely, Daniel J. Greensweig Attorney-at-Law Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center ( Ken Anderson - first amendment to barnick cPd.doc .... %::: ~ ~ ~'% 2~. ,: . . Page FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT, made and entered into as of the day of ,20 by and among the and the COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic (the "Authority"), the CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, a home rule charter city and municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota (the "City") and ROBERT C. BARNICK and PRISCILLA A. BARNICK, d/b/a METRO ASSEMBLIES, a sole proprietorship (the "Developer"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota (the "HRA"), the City, and the Developer did on , 1995 execute and deliver that certain document entitled Contract for Private Development (the "Contract"); and WHEREAS, the HRA has conveyed its rights, interests, and obligations in the Contract to the Authority; and WHEREAS, changes in property tax rates and a lower than anticipated base value of the property subject to the Contract have resulted in less tax increment than expected being generated and paid pursuant to the Contract; and WHEREAS, the Authority, the City, and the Developer desire to extend the term of the Contract in order to provide for the generation and payment of more tax increment than originally projected pursuant to the Contract; and WHEREAS, the Authority and the City have reviewed this Amendment, have received the reports and recommendations of its staff and consultants, and have concluded that this Amendment is necessary and appropriate and in furtherance of the goals and objectives as originally set forth in the Contract. NOW THEREFORE, based upon the mutual covenants and undertakings of the parties, the Contract is hereby amended as follows: 1. The definition of"Agreement" in Section 1.1 is amended to read as follows: "Agreement" means this Contract for Private Development, as amended by the First Amendment to Contract for Private Development dated ,200 , and as the same may be from time to time further modified, amended, or supplemented. 1 DJG-191019vl CL205-9 Ken Anderson: first amendment to barn(ck Cpd,deC ' ..... % "' ~' "2: ,, '~ ,I, =:,,,, .... , Page 2 ] 2. A definition of"Tax Increment" in Section 1.1 is added to read as follows: "Tax Increment" means that portion of the real property taxes which is paid with respect to the Property and which is remitted to the Authority as tax increment pursuant to the Tax Increment Act. 3. The definition of "Termination Date" in Section 1.1 is amended to read as follows: "Termination Date" means the earlier of February 1, 2020 or the date that: (i) the Developer has been fully reimbursed for Qualifying Reimbursable Costs pursuant to this Agreement; and (ii) the Authority has paid $60,000 in Available Tax Increment to the City pursuant to Section 5.3 of this Agreement. 4. Section 5.3 is amended to read as follows: Section 5.3. Oualifying Reimbursable Costs. (a) Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Developer will be reimbursed by the Authority for the Qualifying Reimbursable Costs, hereby defined as the following costs, which the Developer warrants that it has incurred and paid with respect to the Minimum Improvements: Architectural and engineering fees Project administration/site supervision Building permit Demolition of fence Site clean up Dumpster rental Exterior lighting Parking lot paving Landscaping Land Acquisition $ 4,500.00 9,780.00 1,200.00 750.00 1,800.00 1,200.00 2,560.00 8,750.00 1,000,00 18.876.67 Total $50,416.67 The Qualifying Reimbursable Costs will be paid by the Authority to the Developer, without interest thereon, in semi-annual installments payable on each February 1 and August 1 ("Payment Dates") commencing February 1, 2001 and concluding no later than the Termination Date. These payments will be made from Available Tax Increment as defined in this Section 2 and from no other source. (b) The term "Available Tax Increment" means 89.75% of the Tax Increment calculated by the County and paid by the County to the Authority during the six months preceding any Payment Date, after first subtracting $1,840.28 that shall be paid by the Authority to the City as payment for $60,000 2 DJG-191019vl CL205-9 Ken Anderson-first amendment to barnick Cpd.doc = .... ':: j ....~:,:: ,2', ,:= :', j::'2 :: ,%', :',' Page 3 =~ of the cost of the Authority's acquisition of Parcel 1 from the City (such $1,840.28, plus any amounts previously due but unpaid on any Payment Date to the City by the Authority pursuant to this Section 5.3(b) shall be referred to herein as the "City Payment"). (c) If on any Payment Date there is available to the Authority insufficient Tax Increment to make the City Payment, the mount of such deficiency shall be deferred and shall be paid, without interest thereon, on the next Payment Date on which the Authority has available to it Tax Increment in excess of the amount necessary to pay the amount of the City Payment due on such Payment Date. (d) The Authority shall have no obligation to pay any portion of the Qualifying Reimbursable Costs that remains unpaid after the Termination Date. The Authority may prepay all or part of the Qualifying Reimbursable Costs at any time. (e) The Authority shall not be obligated to make any payment to the Developer under this Agreement if there is an Event of Default on the Developer's part under this Agreement that has not been cured. (f) The Authority makes no warranties or representations that Available Tax Increment will be sufficient to pay the Qualifying Reimbursable Costs. The Developer agrees and understands that Available Tax Increment is subject to calculation by the County and change in State law, and that a significant portion of Qualifying Reimbursable Costs may remain unpaid after the Termination Date. The Developer further agrees and understands that estimates of Available Tax Increment provided by the Authority and its agents, officers, or employees are estimates only and not intended for the Developer' s reliance. (g)Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Developer acknowledges and agrees that: (i) in no case shall it be entitled to receive more than $50,416.67 pursuant to this Agreement; (ii) in 1997 and 1998, it received $7,361.00 in Tax Increment as reimbursement for Qualifying Reimbursable Costs; and, therefore, (iii) as of and from February 1, 1999 until the Termination Date, the Developer shall in no case be entitled to receive more than $43,055.67 in Available Tax Increment in addition to the $7,361.00 it has already received. Exhibit E to the Contract, the Assessment Agreement, is deleted in its entirety and replaced by the Assessment Agreement set forth in Schedule A to this Amendment, and wherever used in the Contract, "Assessment Agreement" shall mean the Assessment Agreement set forth in Schedule A to this Amendment. Exhibit F to the Contract, the Repayment Agreement, is deleted in its entirety and replaced by the repayment obligation described in Section 5.3 to the Contract, as amended, and wherever used in the Contract, "Repayment Agreement" shall mean 3 DJG-191019vl CL205-9 Ken Anderson- first:amendment to barnick cpd~doc .................. 22 ~: % "' % %~%%: ~'; Pag.~ 4 ] 10. the repayment obligation set forth in Section 5.3 to the Contract, as amended. This Amendment shall take effect upon the execution of this Amendment and all Exhibits hereto by the Authority, the City, the Developer, and, to the extent necessary, by the Anoka County Assessor. Except as specifically amended herein, the Contract remains unaltered and in full force and effect. The Authority or the City may record this First Amendment and the Assessment Agreement in the public land records in and for Anoka County, Minnesota. The Developer shall pay all costs for recording. This First Amendment, and the Contract, shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. Any dispute arising from this Agreement shall be heard in the state or federal courts of Minnesota, and all parties waive any objection to the jurisdiction thereof, whether based on convenience or otherwise. 4 DJG-191019vl CL205-9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written. THE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: Its: By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 200 , by and , the and of the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the state of Minnesota, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public 5 DJG-191019vl CL205-9 Ken Anderson, first amendment to barnick cpcl.~ doc:' ' . ..... 2E. '.: . ' '. E ........ " Page 6 ] THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS By: Its: By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 200 , by and , the and of the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of the state of Minnesota, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public 6 DJG-191019vl CL205-9 I:,'Ken Anderson- first amendment to barn!~k ~pd:d0c:: ........................ Page 7 ] ROBERT C. BARNICK and PRISCILLA A. BARNICK, d/b/a METRO ASSEMBLIES, a sole proprietorship STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,20 , by and , the and , respectively, of Robert C. Barnick and Priscilla A. Barnick, d/b/a Metro Assemblies, a Minnesota sole proprietorship, on behalf of the proprietorship. Notary Public This document drafted by: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 7 DJG-191019vl CL205-9 Ken Anderson-first amendment to barnick cpd.doc SCHEDULE A A-8 DJG- 187194v3 RC125-223 C H A RTgRED December 5, 2000 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 talephone (612) 337-9310 fax h ttp: Ilwww. kenn edy-graven. co m . ] DANIEL J. GREENSWEIG Attorney at Law · Dinct Dial (612) 337-9231 DEC 6 Ken Anderson City of Columbia Heights 590 40~' Avenue, .NE .... Columbia Heights, MN .55421-3835- BY U.S. MAIL AND FACSIMILE - (763) 706-3671 Dear Ken: I received a voicemail message yesterday from Bill' O'Brien, attomey for Mr. Bamick. He is wondering about the status of any resolution regarding payments to his client and in particular, I would imag~.e., whether the EDA or city has any willingness to discuss the use of tax abatement to'li~iil mak~'~ip'/~!~hortfall in the amount ofTIF that Bamick is receiving. As you know, I do not have strong feelings either way regarding whether it is 'appropriate to consider this. On' the one hand, part of the lowered TIF payments is class rate reductions, which directly benefits Bamick and therefore probably does not justify paying him any amounts from other sources. On the other hand, some of the reduction is the result of an improperly calculated base value for the property, and while the mistake seems to have originated with Bamick's financial advisors and I therefore do not believe that the city or EDA have a legal obligation to rectify this issue, the council or commissioners may for policy reasons want to find some middle ground in which the effects of this mistake can be mitigated to some extent· I suspect that if we as consultants and staff outright reject his request to consider abatement, the matter will end up before the council anyway. In any case, I think we need to quickly respond to Mr. O'Brien with a final answer on this. Could you please check with Walt and see how he wants to proceed? Please give me a .~.aH ify°u have any questions: ... · ' :.. --' ;')-,;-;-"C: :' " '.: '..' ' . :':. '::'? -.. . .... .'..' :: .... . . ..: '. Daniel J. G~&ensii~eig ':::: ::' i" :':': ..:...:. ';': .::: g.:' .'::::'.'-'. "::~:;.'~Z ~:': :': :": ':': .':-: : -. '" .... · :. 7..-.-::' :.= '..'; ::.: ~;'(: ~'.:':~. ,5:'Z. :' ":'.' '~' ' DJG: '; · : · · 2:" . .' . .. '" ' ....... "" ':: ' ' ' ':'. DJG- 190218v 1 CL205-9 ( ,ravc~l Mmne~pdb MN 55402 C612} 357-9310 Fax D~NIEL J. -~,,~,-¢:..2: L.-,, Ot~'£t DiM C(d?) =:-?',')~,'- I c-mail: dirt't',,~,~kea~t.d,p.~-,,.,:. February 21, 2000 Ken Anderson City of Columbia Heights 590 40"' Averme. N]E Columbia Heights, MN 55421°3835 BY U.S- MAlL AND FACSIMILE - (612) 706-3671 Dur Ken: I have spoken with B~t O3jriet, the ]awyer for theiha:~nci~sl As you know, Springsted's most recent set of numbers show that the amount of tax increment that will be generated by 2019 w:l l bc insufficient to pay the combined amounts otherwise Fayable to the cry and the Bamicks The Bamicks are therefore requesting that the city absod:. at least some of this shortfall by not recovering the full $60.000 it is owed for the property i: sold to the HRA for later transfer to the Ba.micks. I told Bill that I could x~ot speak on behalf of the city. but that I thought there could ~.ell be a good deal of reluctance on its part to forego its right to collect the full S60.000- If that is not correct. please let me know, as zt will make tlns a relatively easy situation to resolve. If I xtas correct, however, [ want to suggest an alternative to simply rejecting the Bamicks' request out-of- hand. · Representative Ron Abrams and Senator John Hottinge: have proposed changes to the pmpcrt: tax abaxement law that would allow a city to enter into '-.~ agrc'ement to abate taxes on propc~..n TIF districts, as long as the abatement did x~ot become cffectivc until expiratxon of the distr:c: (Currently. there is a complete prohibition on entenng into abatement agreements on st, cb property). If enacted. and I am told by our firm's loLoyists that it has an excellent chance. it would permit the city m thi~. situation to agr~ to abate the city's share of taxes on the Barracks' property after expirat/on of the TIF District for a pejod of up to 10 years (15 trader somc circumstances if another amendment to the abatement .;tatutes is passed). If the city did so. ,t would hkCly get the 'Barninks very close to being made whole, albeit not until sonie 30 vc,tr~ from now. This approach might also have some value 'n the other ssmation in which a shox~ fall is anticipated, Becausc I do not want to waste your time with prop:sals that will not be cor~sidercd by the Barx~icks. I very briefly discussed this general concept with Bill O'Bnen, with a strong reminder that I h'ad not raised the issue wfih you and could not begin to Dotard a guess as to whethe,' it DJG-I';'I~?lvl CLIOS-g SO/ZO d ~S:80 O0-ZZ-ZO Ken Anclcrson would be acceptable to the city. He also could nat speak for his clients. but thought it ',vas worth bringing it to your attention. Please let me know your thoughts. If the city and EDA .erc umntcrested in pursuing this option, will oI' course communicate that and clraft the contract 'amendment accordingly. Nevertheless. while I believe the city and EDA are on sohd legal ground in refusing to share in any shortfail. do want to alert you that the Barnicks will likely strong:y object to absorbing the full amoum it. I have enclosed a copy of the proposed Icgislation ~ror yo. Lr reference. Sincerely, Dmiel I. Greensw~// DJO:pzr Encl OQ-ZZ-ZO :: 0 'j;: ~":: ~ '~:~!~ ~:' ' '? EXHIBIT B TO ;:~ I. ~ ~,~'L:+ .,.~ . REPAYMENT AGREEMENT ... -.. ., ": ~ ~e ~ua~g Reimbursable Costs and the estimated expenses related thereto Are~tectuml ~d en~eer~g fees $ 4,500.00 Project ad~stration/site superOsion 9,780.00 B~l~g Petit 1,200.00 Demolition of fence 750.00 Site Clean up 1,800.00 Dumpster rent~ .. 1,200.00 Exteflor Hght~ng 2,560.00 ParMng lot paving 8,750.00 Landseaphg 1,000.00 Land AequisiMon 18,876.67 Total $50,416.67 RCL101289 CL1~0-74 Section 1. Defin/tions. Unless the contrary clearly appears from the context, the terms used/n tMs Repayment A~reement shall have the same mean/ngs as ~iven them in the A~Teement. Section 2. Re]~ayrnent Amount. Subject to the l/ntitations conta/ned herein and after first re~nbursing itself $817.90 each year for its Adm/n/strative Expenses and re/mburshag the City $3,680.56 each year for the cost of the Property, the Authority agrees to reimburse the Developer up to $3,680.56 each year for the Developer's actual and reasonable expenses associated with the Qualifying Reimbursable Costs out of Ava/Iable Tax Increment. The Qualifying Reimbursable Costs are listed on Exhibit B attached hereto and constitute the Authority's maximum obligation under this Repayment Agreement. The Authority shall not be obligated to make any payment to the Developer under this Repayment Agreement until the Developer has provided the Authority evidence of the Developer's actual and reasonable expenses associated with the Qualifying Reimbursable Costs. Section 3. Timin~ of Payments. The Authority shall reimburse the Developer for the Qualifying Reimbursable Costs starting. in the year in which the Authority first receives Available Tax Increment from the Minimum Improvements until December 31, 2011. Payments shall be made to the Developer on approximately July 31 and December 31 each year but in any event not more than 30 days following the date on which the Authority receives Available Tax Increment in its semi-annual tax settlement from Anoka county. Subject to the Authority's right to prepay or the Authority's satisfaction of its obligation hereunder at an earlier date, the Authority shall make payments to the Developer until December 31, 2011. Section 4. Prepayment. The Authority may prepay ~dthout penalty all or part of the amount due under this Repayment Agreement at any time. Upon such payment, the Authority shall have no further obligation to make payments to the Developer. If, during the term of this Repayment Agreement, the Avallable Tax RC:r, 101289 CL160-74 2 °I-A - i COLU qBI HEIGHTS PUBLIC BO RI} I USTGG$ MINUTES December 5, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chair, Patricia Sowada at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Patricia Sowada, Nancy Hoium, Catherine Vesley, Richard Hubbard, and Becky Loader. It was moved, seconded, and passed to approve the minutes of the November 1 st, 2000, meeting as mailed. The bill list of November 27, 2000, was reviewed. It was moved, seconded and passed that they be paid. The bill list of December 11, 2000, was also reviewed. It was moved, seconded and passed that they be paid. The accounting was reviewed. The Honeywell contract was discussed. This contract expired on November 1,2000. Circumstances required that an addendum to the current contract for an additional year be instated. It was also noted that the cleaning contract with Fidelity Cleaners expired on December 1 st. Old Business: The Board was updated on the vacant page positions. A conditional offer of employment was made to Candace Dietz. Ms. Dietz withdrew her application two days prior to the start of training. Staff is preparing a new advertisement for positions to be run in the newspaper with the new pay scale. o An update on the writing of the Technology Plan was presented. A history of the first technology plan in 1997 was reviewed. These plans are instrumental in getting funding for technology. Staff is working on drafts that will be presented to the Anoka County Library Board and the Columbia Heights Public Library Board of Trustees. The final plan is due to the State by February 1. MELSA can apply for e-rate for all libraries in the system, so this does not have to be handled by individual libraries. A report on the Marshall's site was tabled. This subject will be discussed at a special Board Meeting to be held on Thursday, December 7, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. The Board will receive a packet of information at that time. New Business: A change in the City offered health insurance was reviewed. The only option is through Health Partners and rates have increased substantially. o A potential problem patron has been identified throughout MELSA. The man has been at Columbia Heights and is in possession of a few of our materials. 3. The crossover statistics were reviewed. City phones are connected and 911 dispatchers could not identify individual buildings. All 911 calls defaulted to the City Hall address. An analog line for 911 calls only has been installed at the Library and at each City building so that the correct address appears if a 911 call is made. NSP will install a remote-read meter after January 1, but because of the location of the Library' s meter, an antenna had to be installed in order for the system to work. The raw data that was gathered by Decision Resources during their citywide survey was shared with the Board. The Board will be updated when the information is refined and put into a concise report. o A report on CHASE programming was reviewed. The Coffee House program was cancelled since the cost per participant would not have effectively used the funds available. Staff will rewrite a proposal to expend the money for another program. The date of the January meeting was discussed. The Board voted to change the date of the January meeting to Thursday, January 4th at 7:00 p.m. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~midt Secretary to the Library Board of Trustees. The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights 'services, programs, and activities. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES Special meeting MINUTES December 7, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Chair, Barbara Miller at 7:15 p.m. Those present were Patricia Sowada, Nancy Hoium, Catherine Vesley, Barbara Miller and Becky Loader. Purpose: 1. Discussion of the former Marshall's area at the Columbia Heights Mall as a potential site for the Library. A packet of materials outlining the time line of meetings/discussions and memos that have occurred was distributed. A list of what other areas have been explored as possible library building sites was presented. The Board discussed issues that they felt had to be addressed before they could make a recommendation. The following outline was discussed: 1. Feasibility Study a. Site examined by independent firm; to include analysis of roof, HVAC, floor, sewer/water b. Use of space needs study information already collected. Tom Dunwell's name was mentioned since he was involved in the existing space needs study. 2. Financial package a. What money is available b. How funding will be generated c. How much does the Council want to spend d. Effect on TIF district 3. Commitment by City Council a. What vision the Council has for the City i. Downtown development? ii. Urban square? b. The library should be a part of that vision The Board strongly felt that these issues must be evaluated prior to any decision being made. The Board also discussed what their vision for the future of the library is. Richard joined the meeting at 8:00 p.m. The Board discussed whether the citizens of Columbia Heights would be better served by thinking in terms of a new building or a used building. The Board felt that they would like to have the library building be an attractive, functional, and technology-orientated facility. The Board discussed assembling a poster board show of attractively designed libraries that they could then present to the Council as a concept of their vision. The Board decided to draft a memo outlining what issues they felt needed to be dealt and that the memo be sent to the present City Council with copies to the new City Council members, and the City Attorney. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, midt Secretary to the Library Board of Trustees. The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or etnployment 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. CiW ~ Co]umbi~ Bei~hts P~rk ran] Recreation Commissie~ December 13, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Eileen Evans at 6:57 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Eileen Evans; Jerry Foss; Kevin Hansen, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Bruce Magnuson; Gary Mayer; Gary Peterson; Roger Peterson; Bob Ruettimann; Keith Windschitl, Recreation Director Members absent: Scott Niemeyer Also present: APPROVAL CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Mayer, second by Foss to approve the consent agenda. All ayes, motion carried. LETTERS AND REOUESTS OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS PROPOSED 2002 RENTAL RATES FOR MURZYN HALL Members reviewed the proposed 2002 rental rates for Murzyn Hall. Members felt that the projected 5% increase for 2002 was sufficient. Eileen Evans stated that Muzyn Hall would take in more revenue if the 75% discount was removed from the rental policy. The Recreation Director explained that 75% discount applies to rentals lasting one hour or less. He also stated that residents of Columbia Heights also receive a 35% discount off their rentals. Members felt that renters should only be eligible for one discount at a time. Motion by Ruettimann, second by Foss to approve the 5% increase for 2002 and to change the rental policy, eliminating the 75% discount and also eliminating any renter from receiving more than one discount per rental beginning with any new rentals effective January 2001. All ayes, motion carded. APPOINT TINA FOSS AS THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION SECRETARY The Recreation Director introduced Tina Foss to the members. Tina is our new Clerk Typist II for the Recreation Department. Members welcomed Tina to the city. Motion by Ruettimann, second by Mayer to appoint Tina Foss as the Park & Recreation Commission Secretary. All ayes, motion carried. PAGE TWO REPORTS RECREATION DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER COMMISSION MEMBERS Bob Ruettimarm asked about the separate budget for major expenses of Murzyn Hall and if anything has been done with that up to this point. Mayor, Gary Peterson, stated that City Council read it in the Park and Recreation Commission minutes and no action has been taken at this point. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Ruettimann, second by Mayer to adjourn. All ayes, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:06 p.m. Tina Foss, Park and Recreation Commission Secretary -A-w COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2000 CALL TO ORDER - The Regular Meeting of the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (EDA) was called to order by Vice President Pat lindra at 7:19 p.m. in Conference Room 1, City Hall, 590 40a' Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, Minnesota. ROLL CALL Commission Members Present: Commission Members Absent: Staff Present: Patricia Jindra, Marlahe SEek, Don Jolly, Julienne Wyckoff, and John Hunter Robert Ruettimann, Gary L. Peterson Walt Fehst, Executive Director' Ken Anderson, Deputy Executive Director Randy Schumacher, Conunity Development Assistant Anita Kottsick, Parkview Villa Public Housing Administrator Shirley Barnes, Crest View Management ADDITIONSfDELETIONS TO MEETING AGENDA MOTION by Marlahe Szurek, seconded by Julienne Wyckoff, TIF Cash flow Report was moved from the Closed Session to 9-C-2, Other Business. All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA A. Move to adopt the consent agenda items as listed below. 1) Approval o[Minutes - regular meeting of October 17, 2000 MOTION by Don loHy, seconded by Mariahe Szurek, to adopt the minutes of the October 17, 2000 regular meeting as presented in writing. All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED. 2) Financial Report and Payment of Bills a. Financial Statement - October, 2000 b. Payment of Bills - October, 2000 MOTION by Don Jolly, seconded by Marlahe Szurek, to approve Resolution 2000-18, a Resolution of the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (EDA) approving the financial statements for October, 2000 and approving payment of bills for October, 2000. All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED. REPORT OF THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY B. Anita Kottsick, Parkdew Villa Homing Admini.~trator. Artira stated that Millar, the elevator repair company, is working on completing the items listed on their punch list. When Millar gets through with everything on the list Bill Gault and Anita will walk through the listed items with a Mlllar representative. In the south building a new ADA complaint phone was installed due to last months breakdown problem. Since the new complaint phone has been installed there hasn't been any further problems with the elevator. At Parkview Villa North two units experienced leaks in their hot water pipes. The first leak showed up with an apartments sheet rock and the second leak showed up in the ceiling tiles on first floor and was tracked to a leak in a shower on the ninth floor. Also apartment #104's heating system had a leak and was repaired after the header on the boiler was replaced. There is a need for some patching and painting in this apartment because of the repair work performed. Maintenance has been notified of this work to be done. Economic Development Authority Minutes November 14, 2000 Page 2 of 5 Fire Chief, Charlie Thompson, conducted a Fire alarm test to see how lon~ it took the monitoring company to contact the fire department once the alarm was set off. The monitoring company contacted the Fire Deparmxent within one minute Of the alann. Anita stated that Parkview Villa residents have been notified of the phone number change for the Parkview Villa North offices. Maintenance is planning to replace the carpet in the foyer, patch the ceiling, paint and add some better signage for using the security phone system area at Parkview Villa North. As requested at last months EDA meeting, Anita has attac.~ed copies of the past Capitol Improvements meetings. In closing she stated that she would be taking vacation from December 11~' through the lYh of which Karl will be helping out in the office that week. CITIZEN FORUM TO ADDRESS EDA ON MATTERS NOT ON AGENDA. RECOGNITION, PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, GUESTS - None. PUBLIC flEARINGS - None. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION C. Other Resolutions - None. D, Bid Considerations - None. E. Other Business 1) Final Development Agreement for Transition Block - Dan Greensweig, Kennedy and Graven, Chartered. Mr. Greensweig updated the EDA commissioners as to the status of the Final Development Agreement for the Transition Block Project. He passed out an informational packet to the commissioners for review. The form of the agreement between the parties involved will be available for adoption at the regular scheduled Council meeting of November 27, 2000. A lot of what he passed out is very similar to what the EDA previously saw on the preliminary agreement that the EDA recen~y approved. Mr. Greensweig will be sitting down with all of the parties involved to come down to a final agreement for the development. He is recommending that a special EDA meeting be held before the Council meeting on November 27, 2000 to approve the final agreement for this project. In discussion,/indra asked if an agreement has come forth with the locksmithing company? Chris Winter stated that they did have a letter of intent to purchase the property. Fehst asked Greensweig and the developers to come in tonight so that the commissioners would have some time to look over the agreement (final) before it is fmalized on November 27, 2000. Walt Fehst asked Mr. Gre~nsweig and the developers to come in tonight so that the commissioners would have some time to look over the agreement (final) before it is ~nalized on November 27, 2000. Fehst visited eleven other cities today to see how they are financing a project such as the one that we are about to approve. His overall review of the visits was that they all came out okay on this type of development. Walt stated that you could not tell were any of the affordable housing was located in the developments. The properties were all kept up very neatly. Hunter stated that he felt that it was something like 55% of our population in the next 5 years that will be seniors. Therefore, we need to create some housing options for these residents. Mr. Fehst stated that the only problem that may arise is the NEI parking area on 41". He asked the commissioners to table the adoption of the Final Agreement until they look over the NEI area of the Final Agreement carefully before the November 2?' meeting and then discuss it again. Economic Development Authority Minutes November 14, 2000 Page 3 of 5 Chris Winters, Real Estate Equities stated that they have been negotiating with NEI on the 500 Parking spots for them as part of the development and he has figured it out that they need about 250 or 225 on an average. Shirley Barnes has heard many comments about the fact that there will be more senior housing for Columbia Heights. However if we make more housing for seniors in the new development, then their homes will be available for younger people to move into their homes. So this will be an opportunity for younger residents to move into. '- MOTION by Marlaine Szurek, seconded by Julietme Wyckoff, to set a special meeting of the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority for 5:30 p.m. on Mond.ay, November 27, 2000 in Conference Room I, City Hall, 590 40~h Avenue N.E. All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED. In discussion, Jolly stated that he will not be able to attend the meeting due to his flight coming in at 5 p.m. that night and he will just be getting here in time for the Council meeting. 2) TIF Cashflow Report Shelly Eldridge, Ehlers and Associates presented the report to the commissioners in great detail and answered questions that the commissioners had. She presented three different Scenarios: 1. A Best Case Scenario- She looked at the market value at its best time then dropped it down by 5 % over 5 years, with no increase or decrease in the tax capacity rate, no further state classification rate compression and the maximum state TIF Grant available through 2004. 2. Moderate Case Scenario- She looked at the growth in value at 0%, no increase or decease in the tax capacity rate, no further State classification rate compression, reduced state TIF Grant available through 2004, and no changes in M8, N7, P3/P4 - no growth in value in Scenario 1. 3. Not So Good Case Scenario- She looked at the growth in value at 0 %, no increase or decrease in the tax capacity rate, further State classification rate compression, State TIF Grant stable through 2004 and no changes in MS, PS/P4 - majority of property is residential. Ms. Eldridge explained that the data that she used to present these scenarios came from Anoka County, Department of Revenue as well as some of the City records. In discussion, Mr. Fehst stated as of today the City did get a total of $300,000 for TIF Cashflow for the year 2001. 3) Reconveyance of Forfeited Lands to State of Minnesota - Ken Anderson. The properties are located at 4460 and 4470 Buchanan SWeet N.E. and 1330 44 1/2 Street N.E. The City acquired the three propem.'es in 1994 for public use for the purpose of subdividing the property for redeveloping. The property at 4450 Buchanan Street N.E. was sold to a private party who defaulted on the terms of the Sale and Development Agreement by not constructing a home on it. However,. he is currently paying the taxes for the property. Staff is recommending the EDA authorize the reconveyance of the properties to the State of Minnesota. Marlaine Szurek stated that she has read over this approval and did not understand why we got the property back. Mr. Anderson explained that the owner failed to payoff his part of the agreement. Mr. Fehst was concerned if it was worth it to the City to fix the property and resell it seeing that this property is in an area that has a soil problem. Marlaine stated that years ago, a family lived on that property and had to move because they became sick. Mr. Hunter stated that we could also put in piling and build a slab home. Mr. Anderson felt that it was too late to explore that option at this point. Economic Development Authority Minutes November 14, 2000 Page 4 of 5 MOTION by Marlaine Szurek, seconded by Julienne Wyckoff, to approve rec0nveyance of forfeited lands at 4460 and 4470 Buchanan Street N.E. and 1330 44 1/a Avenue N.E. to the State of Minnesota; and furthermore, to authorize the President and Executive Director to enter into an agreement for the same. All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED. 4) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Changes - Ken Anderson. Ken stated that this was only a informational piece for the EDA. The plan will change next year in the way that the funds are distributed. Jennifer Bergw. an from Anoka County notified staffby mail that the City will no longer receive a set amount of funds on an annual basis. Rather, it will be necessary to submit an application that will be competitively evaluated among other applications receiyed by all of the Cities in Anoka County Staff will be attending a meeting in regards to this matter on December.'14, 2000 that will explain how the program will work. 5) Approval of the Downtown Master Plan "Town Square" Concept - Ken Anderson. This item came before the EDA Board last month and was tabled until the commissioners had more time to review the Concept. Two Scenarios were presented to the City Council; the Urban Green Concept and the Town Square Concept. The City Council adopted the Town Square Concept at their meeting of August 14, 2000. In discussion, Mr. Fehst recommended that the EDA Board not agree to this concept until staff could take a look at it and make some necessary changes MOTION by Julienne Wyckoff, seconded by Don Jolly, to table the approval of the Town Square Concept until the staff can meet to make some changes to it. All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED.. 6) Approve Change Order No. 2 to Replace Worm and Gear for Elevator No.1 - Ken Anderson. A representative from Millar Elevator Service Company has submitted a proposal to replace the Worm and Gear in Elevator#1 at Parkview Villa North. Ted Smith of Elevator Advisory Group, Inc., has indicated that this work was not included in the original bid specifications because of the lack of funding available through the ClAP Grants. The consultant and contractor both agree that the work is necessary to improve the safety and performance of the elevator. MOTION by John Hunter, seconded by Don Jolly, to approve Change Order No. 2 to replace Worm and Gear for Elevator Number 1 at Parkview Villa North in the total amount of $12,360 with payment from Fund 203- 463314000; and furthermore, to authorize the President and Executive Director to enter into an agreement for the same. All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Report of the Deputy Executive Director - Ken Anderson. 1) Set Date for Holiday Dinner. Mr. Anderson requested that 6 p.m. on December 19~ after the EDA meeting, be set aside for the dinner. The Commissioners requested that they go to Jax's Restaurant again this year. All Commissioners were in agreement. Staff will make the arrangements. Report of the Executive Director - NONE. Committee/Other Reports- NONE. Economic Development Authority Minutes November 14, 2000 Page 5 of 5 MEETINGS The next EDA meeting is scheduled for 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 19, 2000 at Jax Restaurant. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by John Hunter, seconded by Marlahe Szurek, to adjourn the meeting at 10:01p.m. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Cheryl Bakken Recording Secretary H: \EDAminutes\ 11 - 14-2000