HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 14, 2009 Regular
CCH
ITY OF OLUMBIAEIGHTS
Mayor
Gary L. Peterson
th
590 40 Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763)706-3600 TDD (763) 706-3692
Councilmembers
Visit our website at: www.ci.columbia-heights.mn.usRobert A. Williams
Bruce Nawrocki
Tammera Diehm
Bruce Kelzenberg
City Manager
Walter R. Fehst
7:00 PM on
The following is the agenda for the regular meeting of the City Council to be held at
Monday, September 14, 2009
in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 590 40th Avenue N.E.,
Columbia Heights, MN.
The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or
treatment or 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 are available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance.
Please call the City Clerk at 763-706-3611, to make arrangements. (TDD/706-3692 for deaf or hearing impaired only)
1.CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL/INVOCATION
Invocation by Church of All Nations
2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3.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.)
4.PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, RECOGNITION, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND
GUESTS
A.Bobby and Steve's Auto World Youth Foundation donation to the Immaculate Conception fence
installation.
Ì
B.Library Board of Trustees - Fundraiser - M. Szurek
C.Celebrate Constitution Week 2009 - Anoka Chapter of the Daughters of the American
Ì
Revolution
5.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.Approve Minutes of the August 24, 2009 City Council meeting.
Ì
MOTION: Move to approve the minutes of the August 24, 2009 City Council meeting.
B.Accept minutes of the Columbia Heights Boards and Commissions
MOTION: Move to accept the June 23, 2009 minutes of the EDA.
Ì
MOTION: Move to accept the September 1, 2009 minutes of the Planning and Zoning
Ì
Commission.
C.Adopt Resolution 2009-135, being a Resolution for approval of an 11-foot front yard average
setback variance for a deck at 1201 45th Ave.
Ì
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2009-135, there being ample copies
1
City Council Agenda
Monday, September 14, 2009
Page 2 of 5
available to the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2009-135, approving an 11-foot front yard average
setback variance for the construction of a deck at 1201 45th Avenue, subject to the conditions
outlined in Resolution No. 2009-135.
D.Approve Demolition Bid for 4618 Polk Street and 4636 Polk Street
Ì
MOTION: Move to approve demolition contract for_________
E.Grant agreement with ISD #13 for 21st Century Community Learning Centers Grant
Ì
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2009-132, there being ample copies
available to the public.
MOTION: Adopt Resolution No. 2009-132, being a resolution authorizing Execution of
Agreement with Independent School District #13.
Ì
F.Approve Xcel Energy Efficiency Project at Public Works: Main Floor Lighting
MOTION: Move to approve the replacement of 33 400watt Metal Halide light fixtures with 33
high intensity fluorescent lights, with funding provided through the Public Works Central Garage
budget, 701-49950-4000, under the Xcel Energy project as outlined by the Center for Energy and
Environment.
G.Approve Xcel Energy Efficiency Project at Library
Ì
MOTION: Move to approve the replacement of all lamps, nine exit signs, and three incandescent
fixtures at the Library under the Xcel Energy project as outlined by the Center for Energy and
Environment, and for financing to come from fund 411 (General Government Buildings).
H.Acceptance of a matching grant in the amount of $31,682.50 (each) for playground equipment in
Huset West and Ramsdell Parks, totaling $63,365.
Ì
MOTION: Move to accept the grant for Huset Park West in the amount of $31,682.50,
appropriating matching funds of $38,502.89 from the Park Development Fund 412, and
furthermore authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same.
MOTION: Move to accept the grant for Ramsdell Park in the amount of $31,682.50,
appropriating matching funds of $38,502.89 from the Park Development Fund 412, and
furthermore authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same.
I.Approve transfer of funds from General Fund to Police Dept. Budget to reimburse Overtime
Fund re: Detox transports
Ì
MOTION: Move to transfer $420.00 received from Anoka County for partial reimbursement of
costs associated with detox transports from the General Fund to the Police Department 2009
Budget under line item 1020, Police Overtime.
J.Approve transfer of funds from General Fund to Police Dept. Budget to reimburse Overtime
Fund re: Off-Duty Employment Assignments
Ì
MOTION: Move to transfer the $14,682.50 received from the Summer Academy, Sonic
Restaurant, and Unique Thrift Stores from the General Fund to the Police Department 2009
Budget line item 1020, Police Overtime.
K.Approve Resolution 2009-136 being a Resolution establishing the Police Dept. Fee Schedule
Ì
2
City Council Agenda
Monday, September 14, 2009
Page 3 of 5
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2009-136, there being ample copies
available to the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2009-136 being a Resolution establishing a Police
Department Fee Schedule.
L.Establish a public hearing to consider alley lighting
Ì
MOTION: Move to establish Monday, October 12, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. as a Public Hearing for
consideration of alley lighting behind 3906 2nd Street.
M.Approval of the attached list of rental housing license applications, in that they have met the
Ì
requirements of the Property Maintenance Code.
MOTION: Move to approve the items listed for rental housing license applications for
September 14, 2009.
N.Approve Business License Applications
Ì
MOTION: Move to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for September 14,
2009 as presented.
O.Approve Payment of Bills
Ì
MOTION: Move to approve the payment of bills out of the proper funds as listed in the attached
register covering Check Number 131601 through Check Number 131818 in the amount of
$1,474,726.32.
MOTION: Move to approve the Consent Agenda items.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.Adopt Resolutions 2009-139, 4928 4th Street N.E., and 2009-140, 3809 Buchanan Street N.E.
being Resolutions approving rental license revocation for failure to meet the requirements of the
Property Maintenance Codes.
Ì
MOTION: Move to close the public hearing and to waive the reading of Resolution Numbers
2009-139, and 140 being ample copies available to the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution Numbers 2009-139, and 140 being Resolutions of the City
Council of the City of Columbia Heights approving revocation pursuant to City Code, Chapter
5A, Article IV, Section 5A.408(A) of the rental licenses listed.
B.Adopt Resolutions 2009-142, 1140-42 45th Avenue N.E., 2009-143, 1204-06 Cheery Lane N.E.,
2009-144, 3961 Johnson Street N.E., and 2009-145, 4030 Quincy Street N.E. being declarations
of nuisance and abatement of violations within the City of Columbia Heights.
Ì
MOTION: Move to close the public hearing and waive the reading of Resolution Numbers 2009-
142, 143, 144, and 145, there being ample copies available to the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution Numbers 2009-142, 143, 144, and 145, being resolutions
of the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights declaring the properties listed a nuisance
and approving the abatement of violations from the properties pursuant to City Code section
8.206.
7. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
A.Other Ordinances and Resolutions
3
City Council Agenda
Monday, September 14, 2009
Page 4 of 5
1. Adopt Resolution 2009-146, being a Resolution requesting consideration of additional
funding through the 2011 Metro Municipal Agreement Program
Ì
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2009-146, there being ample copies
available to the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2009-146, being a Resolution supporting a request for
the Municipal Agreement Program funding for the construction of the Gateway Pedestrian
Bridge over Central Avenue (TH 65) at 49th Avenue.
2. 1st Reading of Ordinances 1570 and 1571, being a Zoning and Municipal Code Amendment
as they Relate to Smoke Shops
Ì
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1570, being ample copies available to
the public.
MOTION: Move to set the second reading of Ordinance No. 1570, for Monday, September 28,
2009, at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1571, being ample copies available to
the public.
MOTION: Move to set the second reading of Ordinance No. 1571, for Monday, September 28,
2009, at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
B.Bid Considerations
1. Refuse and Recycling Proposals: Award of Bid and Authorizing Contract Development
Ì
MOTION: Move to accept the bids for Refuse, Recycling and Yard Waste Services and from
Veolia Environmental Solid Waste Services, based upon their low, qualified, responsible bid
and, furthermore, direct staff to prepare a 5-year contract for the base bid, and accepting alternate
3 for Single Sort Recycling for the same.
2. Adopt Resolution 2009-133 being a resolution accepting bids and awarding the contract for
2009 Sanitary Sewer Lining, City Project No. 0904 to Visu-Sewer, Inc.
Ì
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2009-133, there being ample copies
available to the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2009-133, being a Resolution accepting bids and awarding
the contract for 2009 Sanitary Sewer Lining, City Project No. 0904 to Visu-Sewer, Inc., based
upon their low, qualified, responsible bid in the amount of $113,200, with funds to be
appropriated from Fund 652-50904-5185; and, furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City
Manager to enter into a contract for the same.
C.Other Business
1. Adopt Resolution 2009-134, being a Resolution adopting a Proposed Budget for the Year
2010, Setting the Proposed City Levy, Approving the HRA Levy, and Establishing a Budget
Hearing Date for Property Taxes Payable in 2010
Ì
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2009-134 there being ample copies
available for the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2009-134 being a resolution adopting a proposed budget,
4
6
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS
: September 17, 2008, marks the two hundred twenty-second anniversary of
the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America by the Constitutional
Convention; and
WHEREAS:
It is fitting and proper to accord official recognition to this magnificent
document and its memorable anniversary; and to the patriotic celebrations which will
commemorate the occasion; and
WHEREAS:
Public Law 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation each year by the
President of the United States of America designating September 17 through 23 as
,
Constitution Week
NOW, THEREFORE I,
Gary L. Peterson, by virtue of the authority vested in me as
Mayor of the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota do hereby proclaim the week of
September 17 through 23, 2009 as
CONSTITUTION WEEK
IN
Columbia Heights, and ask our citizens to reaffirm the ideals of the Framers of the
Constitution had in 1787.
ÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞ
ðÜÄÎËöÜËÄñíØÉØËÊÎÏ
IN WITNESS WHEREOF
, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City
th
of Columbia Heights to be affixed this 14 day of September of the year of our
Lord Two Thousand Nine.
7
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 24, 2009
The following are the minutes for the regular meeting of the City Council held at 7:00 p.m. on Monday,
August 24, 2009in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights,
MN.
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL/INVOCATION
Associate Youth Pastor Jeremiah Rice, Oak Hill Baptist Church gave the Invocation.
Present: Mayor Peterson, Councilmember Williams, Councilmember Nawrocki,
Councilmember Diehm, Councilmember Kelzenberg
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
- recited
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO MEETING AGENDA
Mayor Peterson removed Resolution No. 2009-130 for 3835 Tyler Street, in that the property has
been brought into compliance. He added that the August 31 work session would begin at 6:30 p.m.
for Board and Commission interviews.
Nawrocki requested to add discussion regarding the clean up of the K-mart site and the proposed
2010 budget. Peterson indicated this would be addressed under the Manager’s report.
PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, RECOGNITION, ANNOUNCEMENTS, GUESTS
CONSENT AGENDA
City Manager Walt Fehst took Council members through the Consent Agenda.
A.Approve City Council meeting minutes
Motion
to approve the minutes of the August 10, 2009 City Council meeting.
Motion
to approve the minutes of the August 13, 2009 emergency City Council meeting.
B.Accept minutes of the Columbia Heights Boards and Commissions
Motion
to accept the July 1, 2009 minutes of the Library Board of Trustees.
C.Establish City Council work session for Monday, August 31, 2009.
Fehst stated the discussion would be on the pedestrian bridge and refuse contract.
Motion
to establish a City Council work session on Monday, August 31, 2009 beginning at 7:00
p.m. in Conference Room 1.
D.Authorize Change Order No. 1 for 2008 Street Reconstruction, Project No. 0602, 0802, and
0808.
Motion
to authorize Change Order No. 1 for modifications to concrete curb and gutter, concrete
street, concrete sidewalk including pedestrian ramps, bituminous path, patching, and density
incentive, water system, traffic signal system, signs, and landscaping, City Project 0602, 0802,
and 0808 to Midwest Asphalt Corporation in the amount of $83,006.16 to be funded from Water
Fund ($3,651.90), Liquor Store Fund ($6,682.25), Infrastructure Fund ($6,216.00), and State Aid
Funds ($66,456.01).
8
City Council Meeting
Monday, August 24, 2009
Page 2 of 14
E.Accept the proposal from SEH for a Conservation Water Rate Study
Motion
to accept the proposal from SEH for a Conservation Water Rate Study based upon their
proposal dated August 10th, 2009, in an amount not-to-exceed $9,740; and, furthermore, to
authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same.
F.Approval of the attached list of rental housing license applications.
Motion
to approve the items listed for rental housing license applications for August 24, 2009.
G.Approve Business License Applications
Motion
e to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for August 24, 2009, as
presented.
H.Approve Payment of Bills
Nawrocki stated it was disappointing that we did not receive a bid on the food for the employee
picnic from Columbia Heights businesses. Fehst stated that our contact does live in our city.
Motion
to approve the payment of bills out of the proper funds as listed in the attached register
covering Check Number 131401 through Check Number 131600 in the amount of
$1,679,010.39.
Motion
by Williams, second by Kelzenberg, to approve the Consent Agenda items. Upon vote: All
Motion carried.
ayes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.Liquor license application, 405 Central Avenue.
Scott Clark, Community Development Director, read the staff report relative to this request. Staff
recommended denial due to the lengthy and prolonged history of criminal violations of the new
owner. This request was also reviewed by the Police Chief and City Attorney. The decision is at
the discretion of the City Council.
Police Chief Nadeau stated they have been in an active dialogue with the Star Bar due to two
incidents earlier this summer. They have met with staff regarding over-serving patrons. Since
that time they have been cited twice for over-serving.
Peterson opened the public hearing.
Robert Morlean, applicant, indicated that some issues he has been made aware of and one person
has been removed. He is waiting for a copy of the report on the second person. Morlean
indicated he purchased the bar last April and gave the history of litigation involved, resulting in
th
the bar being turned back over to him on August 7. He stated that the last 25 years he has been
rehabilitating. He bought this to own a little local neighborhood bar. He stated that during the 30
th
days he ran the Star Bar there were no police calls. Since August 7 there have also been no
police incidents. He asked that Council consider the age of his convictions. Morlean referred to
the City Ordinance regarding morale character and his feeling that the convictions should not be
considered. He stated he would uphold the City Ordinance and work with City personnel all he
can.
Jeff Dobberpuhl, 3747 2 ½ Street, resident and attorney, stated he helped Mr. Morlean fight the
case against the two former owners of the bar. There are no incidents with Morlean running the
bar. He stated that Morlean had a different past 28 years ago, but since then he has a very good
9
City Council Meeting
Monday, August 24, 2009
Page 3 of 14
citizenship record. He indicated that to deny a license, the reason must be directly related to the
license request. Dobberpuhl indicated that it would be an advantage to have someone that has
been through alcohol issues and has been sober for five years. This license would only be valid
through December and would be an opportunity to put someone in that facility that cares.
Diehm stated that regarding denial relating to an incident, there was a 1991 conviction for
serving alcohol to minors. Morlean described the incident questioned. Diehm questioned the two
aggravated felony level robbery convictions. Morlean described the incidents questioned. Diehm
referred to a bad check and weapons conviction. Dobberpuhl indicated those were 28 years ago.
Peterson questioned allowing a short term license. Diehm stated that if a short term license is
granted, there would be a vested interest in the license and would require a finding to justify
denial of the license. This would be the proper time to accept or deny the license. Fehst indicated
there were incidents in 1991 and 1992. Dobberpuhl corrected his statement to indicate 18 years.
Fehst referred to incidents in 1998. Dobberpuhl stated he was not aware of those issues.
Diehm questioned the City Attorney on wording in the City Code stating that you shall not issue
a license to anyone with the condition of a felony conviction. Jim Hoeft stated if there is a felony
conviction related to the license you can not issue a license and if the City Council feels the
felony is related to the type of business, under our ordinance you can not issue a license. If the
felony is not related and the Council feels the type of conviction is associated with the type of
business or any other criminal history items, these can be taken into account. Dobberpuhl
referred to Code 364.3, stating that no person shall be disqualified from public employment or be
disqualified from any occupations for which a license is required, solely or in part because of
prior conviction, unless it directly relates to the position of employment or license. He continued
to read from the City Code. Hoeft stated he is comfortable with staff’s recommendation.
Tim Gelford, stated he has been employed at the Star Bar for 12 years. He indicated that during
the last month Mr. Morlean has been a hands-on person. He stated that he trusts him and thinks
he is a good man. He stated that Mr. Morlean has been open and honest about his past. Gelford
listed things that Mr. Morlean has done to improve the bar.
Patty Mathew indicated that she also worked there and has 37 years of experience in the
industry. She stated that Mr. Morlean has come in and changed the place for the better.
Floyd Johns, resident for 47 years, stated that he knew Mr. Morlean when he first started under
the old management. Under his management there have been great changes. He felt Mr. Morlean
would be able to turn this bar around.
Tracy Stankovich, Mr. Morlean’s significant other, stated that he has a heart of gold and insight
into what can go wrong with the patrons of the bar. She felt that he is the right person for this
bar. It would be a shame to not give him a chance.
Deb Johnson, 4626 Pierce, asked what Mr. Morlean’s job was before this. Morlean indicated his
past employment. Johnson stated that staff’s recommendation should be followed.
Nawrocki asked Mr. Morlean’s involvement with the Star Bar. Morlean stated he saw an ad last
March and negotiated with the owners on the purchase and the liquor license. He gave the
history that he bought it, was thrown out, and began legal proceedings. The last landlord was
evicted two weeks ago. Diehm asked who currently holds the license. Clark stated that the
10
City Council Meeting
Monday, August 24, 2009
Page 4 of 14
Donahue’s held the license since January. The bar was closed for two weeks in January due to
licensing issues.
Peterson asked if the owner has to be the holder of the liquor license. Hoeft stated there are a
number of ways to accomplish this, but he would have to go through his attorney. Peterson asked
if the bar would be shut down. Morlean stated the Donahue license would be valid through the
end of the year. They gave up the lease and the equipment, but they hold the license and pay for
the liquor.
Diehm stated she is a supporter of people rehabilitating themselves, but our obligation is to the
regulations pertaining to alcohol.
Motion
by Diehm, second by Williams, to adopt the staff recommendation to deny the liquor
application for Robert S. Morlean, to own and operate the Star Bar, 4005 Central Avenue, based
on provisions of City Code 5.504.
Peterson stated that he hopes there are other options for Mr. Morlean and wished him the best.
Motion carried.
Upon vote: All ayes.
B.Second Reading of Ordinance 1569 re: Weapons (Facsimile Firearms)
Motion
by Diehm, second by Williams, to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1569, there being
Motion carried.
ample copies available to the public. Upon vote: All ayes.
Motion
by Williams, second by Diehm,to adopt Ordinance No. 1569, being an ordinance
Motion carried.
relating to Weapons.Upon vote: All ayes.
C.Second Reading of Ordinance 1568 re: Repeat Nuisance Call Service Fee
Motion
by Kelzenberg, second by Williams, to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1568, there
Motion carried.
being ample copies available to the public. Upon vote: All ayes.
Motion
by Kelzenberg, second by Williams, to adopt Ordinance No. 1568 being an ordinance
relating to Repeat Nuisance Call Service Fee.
Nawrocki requested the definition of a nuisance and asked if someone calls to complain about
loud music who determines if it is a nuisance violation. Nadeau stated that the officer would
make the determination using their discretion and write a report to be shared with the Council. If
someone wishes to contest this they could approach the City Council. Nawrocki asked what
would be done if the noise is no longer loud? Nadeau stated they would address the party and
indicate the reason for their arrival. Nawrocki referred to awkward situations where neighbors
just want to complain.
Deb Johnson, 4626 Pierce, asked if the fee would be against the specific apartment or the
address. Nadeau stated it would be against the address.
carried.
Upon vote: All ayes. Motion
D.Adopt Resolutions 2009-123, 4501 Polk Street N.E., 2009-124, 3928 Central Avenue N.E.,
2009-125, 4600 Polk Street N.E., 2009-126, 3801 Van Buren Street N.E., 2009-127, 4122
Madison Street N.E., 2009-128, 4536 Taylor Street N.E., 2009-129, 543 Lomianki Lane N.E,
11
City Council Meeting
Monday, August 24, 2009
Page 5 of 14
and 2009-130, 3835 Tyler Street N.E. being Resolutions approving rental license revocation for
failure to meet the requirements of the Property Maintenance Codes.
Fire Chief Gary Gorman stated that these licenses are recommended for revocation due to lack of
license paperwork submission and not scheduling an inspection.
Tenants, 4122 Madison, indicated problems with this landlord and stated there is now a
foreclosure notice on the home giving them 45 days to vacate. The landlord is not returning their
phone calls. They questioned their rights. Hoeft stated the foreclosure process does not affect the
renters, but the owner has six months to redeem the property. The property has to be licensed by
the city. People can not rent a non-licensed residence. In the past, we have had other tenants in
the same situation and the city has recognized their need to find alternative housing and has
worked with them. There are many places and services available for help, such as Judi-Care.
Gorman stated they have a book available with tenant resources.
Motion
by Williams, second by Kelzenberg, to close the public hearing and to waive the reading
of Resolution Numbers 2009-123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, and 129 being ample copies available
Motion carried.
to the public. Upon vote: All ayes.
Motion
by Williams, second by Kelzenberg, to adopt Resolution Numbers 2009-123, 124, 125,
126, 127, 128, and 129 being Resolutions of the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights
approving revocation pursuant to City Code, Chapter 5A, Article IV, Section 5A.408(A) of the
Motion carried.
rental licenses listed. Upon vote: All ayes.
E.Adopt Resolution 2009-131, 4544-46 Fillmore Street N.E. being a declaration of nuisance and
abatement of violations within the City of Columbia Heights.
Gorman stated this abatement is for six violations on the property.
Motion
by Kelzenberg, second by Williams, to close the public hearing and to waive the reading
of Resolution Number 2009-131 there being ample copies available to the public. Upon vote: All
Motion carried.
ayes.
Motion
by Kelzenberg, second by Williams, to adopt Resolution Number 2009-131 being a
resolution of the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights declaring the property listed a
nuisance and approving the abatement of violations from the property pursuant to City Code
Motion carried.
section 8.206. Upon vote: All ayes.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
A.Other Ordinances and Resolutions - none
B.Bid Considerations - none
C.Other Business
Approve the Premises Permit Application for Columbia Heights Athletic Boosters to conduct
charitable gambling activities at Chevy Grille, 3701 Central Avenue NE
Peterson stated this request is for a pull tab machine.
Motion
by Kelzenberg, second by Diehm,to direct the City Manager to forward a letter to the
State Charitable Gambling Control Board stating that the City of Columbia Heights has no
objection to the issuance of a Class B Premises Permit for the Columbia Heights Athletic
Boosters Club in conjunction with gambling activities at the Chevy Grille restaurant, 3701
12
City Council Meeting
Monday, August 24, 2009
Page 6 of 14
Central Avenue NE, and furthermore that the City Council hereby waives the remainder of the
sixty-day notice to the local governing body. Upon vote: Kelzenberg, aye; Williams, abstain;
Motion carried.
Diehm, aye; Nawrocki, aye; Peterson, aye. 4 ayes – 1 abstain.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Report of the City Manager
Nawrocki referred to his past comment on mowing at the K-mart site and stated his concern was
with the backside of the property by the apartments. This is relevant to past Cheery Heights resident
concerns with soil stabilization. He referred to the hole dug for the second building. Kevin Hansen,
Public Works Director, stated that the soil where the second building is to be located should be
stabilized. They could hydro seed the area. He will work with the City Planner on this.
Nawrocki stated that the budget is supposed to be presented in August, not just handed out. It has a
double digit increase that he will not support. Fehst stated Councilmember Nawrocki has supported
one-half of the increase through the Public Safety building. Nawrocki stated that people will be
surprised with their property taxes next year. Fehst stated this will be discussed in September with
the projected levy. Nawrocki stated that we need to look at other ways to cut back. Peterson listed
other cities that are having problems. Williams stated that the book borrowed to him by Council-
member Nawrocki from the League of Minnesota Cities stated that 85 percent of cities are having
big problems. Fehst stated that in the last year and one-half we have lost $1.5 million in State Aid.
Nawrocki questioned when the Strom tree would be trimmed. Hansen stated it is on the fall
trimming list. We are not out trimming now. Nawrocki questioned the signs he saw today for no
parking on certain streets. Hansen stated this is for the beginning of seal coat work.
Nawrocki questioned information from the Met Council regarding our Comprehensive Plan and the
Tier II Sewer Plan. Hansen stated that was additional information requested by the Met Council. We
have met the requirements.
Report of the City Attorney
CITIZENS FORUM
Roger Strom, 690 47 ½ Avenue, stated that the dead branches in his boulevard maple should be cut
out while you can see which branches are dead.
Deb Johnson, 4626 Pierce Street, stated she does not like high taxes, but it could be a lot worse. The
condo one block away from her that is in another city, which is one-half the size of her home, has
taxes of $4,600 compared to her $3,000, plus they pay association dues. Johnson asked if there will be
further construction at Grand Central Lofts. Fehst stated they have ideas about what they can do, but
do not know if they can make good by the end of the year. We may lose our grant for the parking lot.
Johnson stated her excitement about the Highlander Center; she likes the prices but hates the hours –
9:00 to 11:00 a.m. Fehst stated that we will try to expand the hours.
COUNCIL CORNER
Kelzenberg
The library will be closed 8-26 to 8-28 for major county-wide computer network
maintenance. Fehst referred to the library including information requests received in the
Green Sheet. He questioned how many are legitimate requests.
Williams
13
City Council Meeting
Monday, August 24, 2009
Page 7 of 14
Indicated the reduction in crime statistics from the Green Sheet. Our officers do a great job.
Keep it up. Drove by the new Public Safety building and it is gorgeous. The Open House will
rd
be October 3.Nadeau stated that we publish our crime statistics through a link on our city
web site. One of the major focuses is violent crime and it is down 40 percent from last year
and 50 percent from two years ago. He credited this to our staff making home visits and
making people accountable. Part II crimes look like there are more offenses, but this only
reflects that our officers are making more arrests.
Diehm
Congratulated Jeff Sargent on the addition to his family.
Wished Councilmember Nawrocki a Happy Birthday.
Nawrocki
Requested copies of the Kennedy and Graven letter be given to Council members. Suggested
putting SRA membership back in the budget. The letter points out what the Suburban Rate
Authority has done.
At the last meeting the Manager commented on furloughs. He pointed out that he contributed
his portion by purchasing carpet for the children’s reading room at the library. Read a
prepared statement on his commitment to the community.
Questioned the budget increase for legal services of $20,000. We need to take new bids. We
should also take bids for audit services.Fehst indicated that prosecution and civil work fees
have not increased. Fehst stated his opinion on the furlough comments.
Peterson
Don’t take ourselves too seriously and remember our service men and women.
Have additional comments, but due to the tone, it is time to end the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Peterson closed the meeting at 8:29 p.m.
_________________________________
Patricia Muscovitz CMC City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 1568
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1490, CITY CODE OF 2005 RELATING TO REPEAT
NUISANCE CALL SERVICE FEE
Chapter 8 of the Columbia Heights City Code will be amended to include the following:
ARTICLE VIII: REPEAT NUISANCE CALL SERVICE FEE
Section
8.801 Purpose
8.802 Scope and application
8.803 Definitions
8.804 Repeat nuisance service call fee
8.805 Notice
8.806 Right to appeal
8.807 Legal remedies nonexclusive
8.808 Applicability of repeat nuisance service call fee
8.809 Recovery of fee
14
City Council Meeting
Monday, August 24, 2009
Page 8 of 14
§ 8.801 PURPOSE.
The purpose of this section is to protect the public safety, health and welfare and to prevent and abate repeat service
response calls by the City to the same property or location for nuisance service calls, as defined herein, which prevent police or
public safety services to other residents of the City. It is the intent of the City by the adoption of this Section to impose and
collect service call fees from the owner or occupant, or both, of property to which City officials must repeatedly respond for any
repeat nuisance event or activity that generates extraordinary costs to the City. The repeat nuisance service call fee is intended to
cover that cost over and above the cost of providing normal law or code enforcement services and police protection city-wide.
§ 8.802 SCOPE AND APPLICATION.
This Section applies to all owners and occupants of private property which is the subject or location of the repeat
nuisance service call by the City. This Section applies to any repeat nuisance service calls made by a City of Columbia Heights
peace officer, part-time peace officer, community service officer, animal control and/or code enforcement officers.
§ 8.803 DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Section, the term “nuisance misconduct” means any activity, conduct, or condition occurring upon
private property within the City that unreasonably annoys, injures, or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort or repose of
any member of the public; or will, or tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke breach of the peace, to which the City is
required to respond, including, but not limited to the following:
(A) Any activity, conduct, or condition deemed as a public nuisance under any provision of the City Code;
(B) Any activity, conduct, or condition in violation of Minnesota State Statute 609.33;
(C) Any conduct, activity or condition constituting a violation of any Minnesota state law prohibiting or regulating
prostitution, gambling, controlled substances, use of firearms; and/or
(D) Any conduct, activity, or condition constituting disorderly conduct under Chapter 609 of Minnesota Statutes.
§ 8.804 REPEAT NUISANCE SERVICE CALL FEE.
(A) The City may impose a repeat nuisance service call fee upon the owner and/or occupant of a private property if the
City has rendered services or responded to the property on three or more occasions within a period of 365 days in response to or
for the abatement of nuisance conduct.
(B) The repeat nuisance service call fee will be set forth in a resolution approved by the City Council. An additional
amount may be imposed to reflect the salaries of police officers, community service officers, animal control and/or code
enforcement officers while responding to or remaining at the nuisance event, the pro rata cost of equipment, the cost of repairing
city equipment and property damaged as a result of the nuisance call, and the cost of any medical treatment of injured officers.
(C) A repeat nuisance service call fee imposed under this Section will be deemed delinquent if it is not paid within 30
days after the City mails the billing statement for the fee. The City will add a ten percent late penalty to a delinquent payment.
§ 8.805 NOTICE.
(A) No repeat nuisance service call fee may be imposed against an owner or occupant of property without first providing
the owner or occupant with written notice of the two previous nuisance service calls which are the basis for the fee. The written
notice must:
(1) Identify the nuisance conduct that previously occurred on the property, and the dates of the previous
nuisance conduct; and
(2) State that the owner or occupant may be subject to a nuisance call service fee if a third nuisance service call
is rendered to the property for any further nuisance conduct; and
(3) State that the City has the right to seek other legal remedies or actions for abatement of the nuisance or
compliance with the law; and
(4) Be served personally; by U.S. Mail upon the owner or occupant at the last known address; or by posting the
subject property.
§ 8.806 RIGHT TO APPEAL.
(A) When the City mails the billing statement for the repeat nuisance service call fee, the City will inform the owner or
occupant of their right to request a hearing.
(B) The owner or occupant upon whom the fee is imposed must request a hearing within ten (10) business days of the
mailing of the billing statement, excluding the day the statement is mailed. The request for a hearing must be in writing and
delivered to the City Clerk. The hearing will occur within thirty (30) days of the date of the request. If the owner or occupant
fails to request a hearing within the time and in the manner required under this Section, the right to a hearing is waived.
(C) The hearing will be conducted by the City Council in an informal manner. The Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure
and Rules of Evidence will not be strictly applied. After considering all evidence submitted, the City Council will make written
Findings of Fact and Conclusions regarding the nuisance conduct and the imposition of the repeat nuisance service fee. The City
Council will serve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions upon the owner or occupant by U.S. Mail within ten (10) days of the
hearing.
15
City Council Meeting
Monday, August 24, 2009
Page 9 of 14
(D) If the owner or occupant fails to appear at the scheduled hearing date, the right to a hearing is waived.
(E) Upon waiver of the right to a hearing under subdivision (2) or (4) or upon service of the City Council’s Findings of
Fact and Conclusions that the repeat nuisance call service fee is warranted, the owner or occupant must pay the fee imposed
within ten (10) days.
§ 8.807 LEGAL REMEDIES NONEXCLUSIVE.
Nothing in this Section will be construed to limit the City’s other available legal remedies, including criminal, civil,
injunctive or others, for any violation of the law.
§ 8.808 APPLICABIILTY OF REPEAT NUISANCE SERVICE CALL FEE.
The City may not impose a repeat nuisance service call fee against an owner or occupant for a police response relating to
emergency assistance, including, but not limited to, domestic spousal and child abuse.
§ 8.809RECOVERY OF FEE.
(A) If a repeat nuisance service call fee remains unpaid thirty (30) days after the billing statement is sent by the City, it
shall constitute:
(1) a lien on the real property where the violation occurred; or
(2) a personal obligation of the owner or occupant in all other situations.
(B) A lien may be assessed against the property and collected in the same manner as taxes.
(C) A personal obligation may be collected by appropriate legal means.
ORDINANCE NO. 1569
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO 1490, CITY CODE OF 2005, RELATING TO WEAPONS
The City of Columbia Heights does ordain:
Chapter 10, Article III, Section 307 of the Columbia Heights City Code, is hereby amended to read as follows:
§ 10.307 WEAPONS.
A. A firearm is any weapon from which may be fired or ejected one or more solid projectiles by means of a
cartridge or shell by the action of an explosive or the ignition of flammable or explosive substances. Firearms also include any
weapons for which the said propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, air, or any gas or vapor. Firearms shall
include all shotguns, rifles and other longguns, pistols and revolvers, BB guns, air guns, slingshots, and pellet guns, but shall not
include a stud or nail gun commonly used in the construction industry or children’s popguns or toys.
B. No person, except a regular peace officer in the performance of his duties, shall use, fire or discharge a firearm,
as defined herein, within the city.
C. Facsimile firearm means any object which is a replica of an actual firearm, which substantially duplicates an
actual firearm, or which could reasonably be perceived to be an actual firearm, unless:
(1) The entire exterior surface of such object is colored white, bright red, bright orange, bright yellow, bright green,
bright blue, bright pink or bright purple, either singly or as the predominant color in combination with other colors in any pattern;
or such object is constructed entirely of transparent or translucent materials which permits unmistakable observation of the
firearm’s complete contents; and
(2) Such object shall have as an integral part, permanently affixed, a blaze orange extension that extends at least six (6)
millimeters from the muzzle end of the barrel of such object; and
(3) Such object does not have attached thereto a laser pointer.
“Facsimile firearm” does not include any actual firearm as otherwise regulated by the terms of this Code or the Minnesota
Statutes.
D. It shall be unlawful for any person within the city to carry on or about his person in a public place or transport
in any vehicle in any public place any weapon or facsimile firearm, except the transportation of any weapon or facsimile firearm
in or upon any motor vehicle in a secured container or in the locked truck of such vehicle.
The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to the transport of weapons or facsimile firearms by persons who are
regularly engaged in the lawful manufacture, distribution or sale at retail or wholesale of weapons or facsimile firearms, or the
agents of any of them while engaged in such business; to the carrying or transport of weapons or facsimile firearms by licensed,
full-time peace officers, law enforcement officers or military personnel while in the course of their duties; to persons holding a
permit to carry a firearm acting within the scope of such permits; to any officer of a state adult correctional facility when on guard
duty or otherwise engaged in an assigned duty.
E. The Columbia Heights Police Department may impound any weapon which is used in violation of divisions (A)
or (B), or M.S. §609.99, as it may be amended from time to time, which comes into its possession as lost and found property, or
which otherwise comes legally into its possession.
16
City Council Meeting
Monday, August 24, 2009
Page 10 of 14
F. The weapon may be surrendered to the rightful owner upon such owner furnishing proof of ownership and
providing that no charges are pending against the rightful owner arising from the possession or use of that weapon and providing
that the rightful owner is otherwise entitled to the return of the said weapon.
G. Any weapon impounded by the city and which remains unclaimed by the owner of a period of 60 days maybe
sold or otherwise disposed of as approved by the City Council following 10 days published notice in the legal newspaper of the
city prior to such sale or other disposal.
H. All proceeds realized from the sale or disposal of impounded weapons shall either be deposited in the general
fund of the city, or, if approved by the City Council, traded for other equipment for the Police Department. Upon furnishing proof
of ownership of a weapon which has been sold or otherwise disposed of pursuant to this section, the true owner thereof may
recover an amount equal to the proceeds received from the sale of that weapon at the sale. If the weapon has been traded and a
valid claim is made pursuant to this section, the city shall reimburse the owner of the weapon in an amount equal to the fair
market value of the said weapon at the time of the trade. Any payments recovered hereunder shall be made from the general fund.
Provided, that no such owner may recover or bring any action to recover such payment unless such owner does so within a period
of six months following the date of the sale of the weapon. (’77 Code, § 10.307) (Am. Ord. 1006, passed 10-25-82) Penalty, see
§10.401
RESOLUTION 2009-123
Resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights approving revocation pursuant to City Code, Chapter 5A, Article
IV, Section 5A.408(A) of that certain residential rental license held by Richard Stueland (Hereinafter "License Holder").
Whereas, license holder is the legal owner of the real property located at 4501 Polk Street N.E. Columbia Heights, Minnesota,
Whereas, pursuant to City Code, Chapter 5A, Article IV, Section 5A.408(B), written notice setting forth the causes and reasons
for the proposed Council action contained herein was given to the License Holder on August 3, 2009of an public hearing to be
held on August 24, 2009.
Now, therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia Heights, the City
Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.That on or about July 15, 2009, inspection office staff sent a letter requesting the owner of the property to renew the
rental license for this property. The letter was mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed in the property
records.
2.That onAugust 3, 2009 inspection office staff reviewed the property file and noted that the property remained
unlicensed. A Statement of Cause was mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed in the property records.
3.That based upon said records of the Enforcement Office, the following conditions and violations of the City’s Residential
Maintenance Code were found to exist, to-wit: Failure to submit renewal rental license application and fees
4.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, Chapter 5A, Article III 5A.306 and 5A.303(A).
ORDER OF COUNCIL
1. The rental license belonging to the License Holder described herein and identified by license number F9019 is hereby
revoked;
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.
RESOLUTION 2009-124
Resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights approving revocation pursuant to City Code, Chapter 5A, Article
IV, Section 5A.408(A) of that certain residential rental license held by Fatemeh Raboodan (Hereinafter "License Holder").
Whereas, license holder is the legal owner of the real property located at 3928 Central Avenue N.E. Columbia Heights,
Minnesota,
Whereas, pursuant to City Code, Chapter 5A, Article IV, Section 5A.408(B), written notice setting forth the causes and reasons
for the proposed Council action contained herein was given to the License Holder on August 3, 2009of an public hearing to be
held on August 24, 2009.
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
17
City Council Meeting
Monday, August 24, 2009
Page 11 of 14
1.That on or about July 15, 2009, inspection office staff sent a letter requesting the owner of the property to renew the
rental license for this property. The letter was mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed in the property
records.
2.That onAugust 3, 2009 inspection office staff reviewed the property file and noted that the property remained
unlicensed. A Statement of Cause was mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed in the property records.
3.That based upon said records of the Enforcement Office, the following conditions and violations of the City’s Residential
Maintenance Code were found to exist, to-wit: Failure to submit renewal rental license application and fees
4.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, Chapter 5A, Article III 5A.306 and 5A.303(A).
ORDER OF COUNCIL
1. The rental license belonging to the License Holder described herein and identified by license number F9196 is hereby
revoked;
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.
RESOLUTION 2009-125
Resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights approving revocation pursuant to City Code, Chapter 5A, Article
IV, Section 5A.408(A) of that certain residential rental license held by Ita Ekah (Hereinafter "License Holder").
Whereas, license holder is the legal owner of the real property located at 4600 Polk Street N.E. Columbia Heights, Minnesota,
Whereas, pursuant to City Code, Chapter 5A, Article IV, Section 5A.408(B), written notice setting forth the causes and reasons
for the proposed Council action contained herein was given to the License Holder on August 3, 2009of an public hearing to be
held on August 24, 2009.
Now, therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia Heights, the City
Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.That on or about July 15, 2009, inspection office staff sent a letter requesting the owner of the property to renew the
rental license for this property. The letter was mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed in the property
records.
2.That onAugust 3, 2009 inspection office staff reviewed the property file and noted that the property remained
unlicensed. A Statement of Cause was mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed in the property records.
3.That based upon said records of the Enforcement Office, the following conditions and violations of the City’s Residential
Maintenance Code were found to exist, to-wit: Failure to submit renewal rental license application and fees
4.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, Chapter 5A, Article III 5A.306 and 5A.303(A).
ORDER OF COUNCIL
1. The rental license belonging to the License Holder described herein and identified by license number F9208A is hereby
revoked;
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.
RESOLUTION 2009-126
Resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights approving revocation pursuant to City Code, Chapter 5A, Article
IV, Section 5A.408(A) of that certain residential rental license held by CNJI, LLC (Hereinafter "License Holder").
Whereas, license holder is the legal owner of the real property located at 3801 Van Buren Street N.E. Columbia Heights,
Minnesota,
Whereas, pursuant to City Code, Chapter 5A, Article IV, Section 5A.408(B), written notice setting forth the causes and reasons
for the proposed Council action contained herein was given to the License Holder on August 3, 2009of an public hearing to be
held on August 24, 2009.
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:
18
City Council Meeting
Monday, August 24, 2009
Page 12 of 14
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.That on or about July 15, 2009, inspection office staff sent a letter requesting the owner of the property to renew the
rental license for this property. The letter was mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed in the property
records.
2.That onAugust 3, 2009 inspection office staff reviewed the property file and noted that the property remained
unlicensed. A Statement of Cause was mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed in the property records.
3.That based upon said records of the Enforcement Office, the following conditions and violations of the City’s Residential
Maintenance Code were found to exist, to-wit: Failure to submit renewal rental license application and fees and failure to
schedule an annual rental relicensing inspection.
4.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, Chapter 5A, Article III 5A.306 and 5A.303(A).
ORDER OF COUNCIL
1. The rental license belonging to the License Holder described herein and identified by license number F9078 is hereby
revoked;
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.
RESOLUTION 2009-127
Resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights approving revocation pursuant to City Code, Chapter 5A, Article
IV, Section 5A.408(A) of that certain residential rental license held by Kristin Haste (Hereinafter "License Holder").
Whereas, license holder is the legal owner of the real property located at 4122 Madison Street N.E. Columbia Heights, Minnesota,
Whereas, pursuant to City Code, Chapter 5A, Article IV, Section 5A.408(B), written notice setting forth the causes and reasons
for the proposed Council action contained herein was given to the License Holder on August 3, 2009of an public hearing to be
held on August 24, 2009.
Now, therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia Heights, the City
Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.That on or about July 15, 2009, inspection office staff sent a letter requesting the owner of the property to renew the
rental license for this property. The letter was mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed in the property
records.
2.That onAugust 3, 2009 inspection office staff reviewed the property file and noted that the property remained
unlicensed. A Statement of Cause was mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed in the property records.
3.That based upon said records of the Enforcement Office, the following conditions and violations of the City’s Residential
Maintenance Code were found to exist, to-wit: Failure to submit renewal rental license application and fees
4.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, Chapter 5A, Article III 5A.306 and 5A.303(A).
ORDER OF COUNCIL
1. The rental license belonging to the License Holder described herein and identified by license number F9082 is hereby
revoked;
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.
RESOLUTION 2009-128
Resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights approving revocation pursuant to City Code, Chapter 5A, Article
IV, Section 5A.408(A) of that certain residential rental license held by Paul Glynn (Hereinafter "License Holder").
Whereas, license holder is the legal owner of the real property located at 4536 Taylor Street N.E. Columbia Heights, Minnesota,
Whereas, pursuant to City Code, Chapter 5A, Article IV, Section 5A.408(B), written notice setting forth the causes and reasons
for the proposed Council action contained herein was given to the License Holder on August 3, 2009of an public hearing to be
held on August 24, 2009.
19
City Council Meeting
Monday, August 24, 2009
Page 13 of 14
Now, therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia Heights, the City
Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.That on or about July 15, 2009, inspection office staff sent a letter requesting the owner of the property to renew the
rental license for this property. The letter was mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed in the property
records.
2.That onAugust 3, 2009 inspection office staff reviewed the property file and noted that the property remained
unlicensed. A Statement of Cause was mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed in the property records.
3.That based upon said records of the Enforcement Office, the following conditions and violations of the City’s Residential
Maintenance Code were found to exist, to-wit: Failure to submit renewal rental license application and fees
4.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, Chapter 5A, Article III 5A.306 and 5A.303(A).
ORDER OF COUNCIL
1. The rental license belonging to the License Holder described herein and identified by license number F9088 is hereby
revoked;
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.
RESOLUTION 2009-129
Resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights approving revocation pursuant to City Code, Chapter 5A, Article
IV, Section 5A.408(A) of that certain residential rental license held by Robert Machel (Hereinafter "License Holder").
Whereas, license holder is the legal owner of the real property located at 543 Lomianki Lane N.E. Columbia Heights, Minnesota,
Whereas, pursuant to City Code, Chapter 5A, Article IV, Section 5A.408(B), written notice setting forth the causes and reasons
for the proposed Council action contained herein was given to the License Holder on August 3, 2009of an public hearing to be
held on August 24, 2009.
Now, therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia Heights, the City
Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.That on or about July 15, 2009, inspection office staff sent a letter requesting the owner of the property to renew the
rental license for this property. The letter was mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed in the property
records.
2.That onAugust 3, 2009 inspection office staff reviewed the property file and noted that the property remained
unlicensed. A Statement of Cause was mailed by regular mail to the owner at the address listed in the property records.
3.That based upon said records of the Enforcement Office, the following conditions and violations of the City’s Residential
Maintenance Code were found to exist, to-wit: Failure to submit renewal rental license application and fees
4.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, Chapter 5A, Article III 5A.306 and 5A.303(A).
ORDER OF COUNCIL
1. The rental license belonging to the License Holder described herein and identified by license number F9240 is hereby
revoked;
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.
RESOLUTION 2009-131
Resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights declaring the property a nuisance and approving abatement of
ordinance violations pursuant to Chapter 8, Article II, of City Code, of the property owned by Conrad Smith (Hereinafter "Owner
of Record").
Whereas, the owner of record is the legal owner of the real property located at 4544-46 Fillmore Street N.E. Columbia Heights,
Minnesota.
And whereas, pursuant to Columbia Heights Code, Chapter 8, Article II, Section 8.206, written notice setting forth the causes and
reasons for the proposed council action contained herein was sent via regular mail to the owner of record on August 6, 2009.
20
City Council Meeting
Monday, August 24, 2009
Page 14 of 14
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 June 29, 2009 an inspection was conducted on the property listed above. Inspectors found six violations. A
compliance order was sent via regular mail to the owner at the address.
2.That on August 6, 2009 inspectors reinspected the property listed above. Inspectors noted that six violations remained
uncorrected. A compliance order and statement of cause was mailed via regular mail to the owner listed in the property
records.
3.That on August 17, 2009 inspectors reinspected the property and found that six violations remained uncorrected.
4.That based upon said records of the Fire Department, the following conditions and violations of City Codes(s) were
found to exist, to wit: Shall clean the gutters out, shall repair/replace the upstairs unit screen door, shall replace any/all
missing screens on the house, shall replace all broken windows, shall repair the shed, missing shed door, shall repair the
hole in the overhead garage door.
5.That all parties, including the owner of record and any occupants or tenants, have been given the appropriate notice of
this hearing according to the provisions of the City Code Section 8.206(A) and 8.206(B).
CONCLUSIONS OF COUNCIL
1.That the property located at 4544-46 Fillmore Street N.E. is in violation of the provisions of the Columbia Heights City
Code as set forth in the Notice of Abatement.
2.That all relevant parties and parties in interest have been duly served notice of this hearing, and any other hearings
relevant to the abatement of violations on the property listed above.
3. That all applicable rights and periods of appeal as relating to the owner of record, occupant, or tenant, as the case may
be, have expired, or such rights have been exercised and completed.
ORDER OF COUNCIL
1.The property located at 4544-46 Fillmore Street N.E constitutes a nuisance pursuant to City Code.
2.That a copy of this order shall be served upon all relevant parties and parties in interest.
21
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA)
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
June 23, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Vice President-Marlaine Szurek.
Members Present: Bruce Nawrocki, Marlaine Szurek, Gerry Herringer, Tammera Diehm, Bobby
Williams, and Bruce Kelzenberg.
Members absent: Gary Peterson
Staff Present: Walt Fehst, Scott Clark, Sheila Cartney, and Shelley Hanson.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-
RECITED
3. CONSENT AGENDA
1.Approve the Minutes of May 27, 2009-Herringer noted a correction to his comments on page 5 of
the minutes.
Motion by Williams, seconded by Herringer to approve the minutes of May 27, 2009, as
amended. All Ayes. MOTION PASSED.
2.Approve the Financial Report and Payment of Bills for May per Resolution 2009-19
Nawrocki questioned account #39140 of the Community Development Fund. Clark explained that
fund holds money transferred from the Parkview Villa Fund to our budget and that $8,942 has
been expended thus far.
Nawrocki asked about check #130396 for $1,000. Clark explained this was a refund of an escrow
deposit for corrections needed on an Abandoned Property. However, the sale fell through so the
deposit was returned to the person.
He then asked about check #130372 to Northeast Bank and Check #130506 to First American
Title Co. Clark explained these two checks were for the purchase of properties and that is where
the funds were deposited to complete the purchase. Check #130372 was for the purchase of 4502
th
Washington Street and Check # 130506 was for the purchase of 4108 7 Street.
Motion by Williams, seconded by Kelzenberg, to waive the Reading of Resolution 2009-19, there
being ample copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Williams, seconded by Kelzenberg, to approve the Financial Report and Payment of
Bills per Resolution 2009-19. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
22
Economic Development Authority Minutes
Page 2
June 23, 2009
EDA RESOLUTION 2009-19
RESOLUTION OF THE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA)
APPROVING THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR MAY 2009 AND PAYMENT OF BILLS FOR THE
MONTH OF MAY 2009.
WHEREAS,
the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (EDA) is required by Minnesota Statutes
Section 469.096, Subd. 9, to prepare a detailed financial statement which shows all receipts and disbursements, their
nature, the money on hand, the purposes to which the money on hand is to be applied, the EDA's credits and assets and
its outstanding liabilities; and
WHEREAS,
said Statute also requires the EDA to examine the statement and treasurer's vouchers or bills and if
correct, to approve them by resolution and enter the resolution in its records; and
WHEREAS,
the financial statement for the month of May 2009 and the list of bills for the months of May 2009 are
attached hereto and made a part of this resolution; and
WHEREAS,
the EDA has examined the financial statement and the list of bills and finds them to be acceptable as to
both form and accuracy.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
by the Board of Commissioners of the Columbia Heights Economic
Development Authority that it has examined the attached financial statements and list of bills, which are attached
hereto and made a part hereof, and they are found to be correct, as to form and content; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
the financial statements are acknowledged and received and the list of bills as
presented in writing are approved for payment out of proper funds; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
this resolution and attachments are to be made a part of the permanent records of the
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority.
Passed this 23rd day of June , 2009.
MOTION BY: Williams
SECONDED BY: Kelzenberg
AYES: All ayes
BUSINESS ITEMS
4.BKV Presentation-Grand Central Lofts
Clark stated that BKV has pulled this item from the agenda and would not be making a presentation
at this meeting. Dave Kloiber (owner of the property) and Clark Gassen (Developer) are still
discussing possible development options, which could include units similar in style to the first condo
building, but would be rental in status. Clark told them the new plan would need to go before the
EDA and P & Z Commission for approval. Clark explained that Gassen intends to construct buildings
that would be similar in appearance and have a similar number of units as was originally planned.
These would be market driven rentals and are not intended to be low income or subsidized units.
23
Economic Development Authority Minutes
Page 3
June 23, 2009
Diehm stated she had looked at the proposed plans and though it looks similar to the project in St
Anthony, she is skeptical of additional rental in general. She said we have a development agreement
in place that requires owner occupied units and we should be sensitive to the current owners who
have invested in purchasing their units. If this proposal were considered, the Development
Agreement would need to be amended, as well as the Association documents. Clark stated one issue
is that the use of the Community Center would also need to be resolved. Diehm asked if staff could
research the number of units that have been sold in the existing building and the range of sale prices
for the units.
Nawrocki stated he has been in the St Anthony rental building. He said the units were very nice to
begin with, but after being rented for a time, the overall condition deteriorates. He believes owner
occupied units remain in a better state of repair longer. He used the LaBelle Condos as an example.
He went on to say the current owner has not been maintaining the overall site very well so he
questions how the buildings would be managed if it were rental.
Williams had mixed feelings about the project. If they were built as luxury apartments, he may
consider it, but he doesn’t feel it would be good for the health of the City to add market rate or
subsidized housing to the site.
Szurek questioned whether the city would legally be able to prohibit units from being rented as
subsidized or low-income housing. She stated there have been other places built in the city that were
intended to be for middle/upper income residents that ended up being rented to those on the Section 8
Housing Program. She thinks that City Officials should be very cautious
Diehm felt we should have owner occupied buildings or cooperative buildings whereby the residents
have a vested interest in the property. She doesn’t believe that building luxury, high-end rental units
will struggle on this site due to issues in the area. The developer can say that is the intent, but she
feels reality would be much different, once built.
Herringer said the current development agreement requires buildings that will be owner occupied to
be constructed. If the project is changed mid stream, it is not fair to those who have already
purchased their units. This type of thing is what causes distrust in government and of the decisions
made by the elected officials. He thinks we need to attract residents for long term to help stabilize
our city and our schools. We want owners who will be more likely to re-invest in their properties,
than renters who use the property and move on. He had concerns that once the buildings are
constructed, if the units don’t rent, then adjustments are made to fill them up and they begin to
deteriorate. He is very much opposed to taking that type of risk with this site.
Kelzenberg said he couldn’t support this type of project. He also felt we should stick with the
original development agreement that requires owner occupied units to encourage residents to make a
commitment to the city.
The general consensus was not to amend the Development Agreement to allow Rental Property to be
constructed.
24
Economic Development Authority Minutes
Page 4
June 23, 2009
5. RESOLUTION 2009-18 EDA PLEDGE AGREEMENT FOR GO BOND SERIES 2009B
Clark explained that on June 8, 2009, the City Council approved the sale of a $580,000 taxable
general obligation tax increment bond designated for redevelopment in the Sheffield neighborhood.
This bond will be paid for by future tax increment generated by the existing condominium project
located in the Kmart/Central Redevelopment TIF District. Clark also noted that our Bond Rating was
increased which helped to lower the cost of the bond.
Nawrocki expressed his general opposition to modifying or extending any of the TIF districts. He
used the University Heights TIF District as an example, and stated that it should have been de-
certified since all the existing debts had been paid. Nawrocki opposes this action because at the time
it was established, residents were told the tax increment funds would be used for city services which
would keep city and school taxes down.
Motion by Williams, seconded by Diehm, to waive the reading of resolution 2009-18, there being ample
copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Williams, seconded by Kelzenberg, to adopt Resolution 2009-18, Authorizing Execution of a Tax
Increment Pledge Agreement with the City of Columbia Heights relating to $580,000 Taxable General
Obligation Tax Increment Bonds.
Ayes: Kelzenberg, Williams, Diehm, Szurek, and Herringer Nays: Nawrocki MOTION PASSED.
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-18
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A
TAX INCREMENT PLEDGE AGREEMENT WITH THE
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS RELATING TO
$580,000 TAXABLE GENERAL
OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 2009B
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
(the “Authority”), as follows:
1. The President and the Executive Director of the Authority are hereby authorized to execute and deliver a
Tax Increment Pledge Agreement with the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota (the “City”), substantially in the form on
file in City Hall, providing for the pledge of tax increment for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest
on the City’s $ 580,000 Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2009B.
2. This Resolution shall be effective as of the date hereof.
Passed this 23rd day of June, 2009.
Offered by: Williams
Second by: Kelzenberg
Ayes: Kelzenber, Williams, Diehm, Szurek, Herringer
Nays: Nawrocki
25
Economic Development Authority Minutes
Page 5
June 23, 2009
6.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
th
4147 7 St-House Donation—
Clark stated that the City Council took action on June 22, 2009 to approve the Scattered Site District that
allows City Staff to buy run down properties as they become available. Staff received a call from a
family this week that would like to donate their mother’s former house to the City. Clark explained that
the house has been appraised at $32,000. The house has major issues such as rotted windows, no
insulation, mold, portions of the sheet rock and ceilings are missing, the foundation walls are starting to
buckle, and it is built on a 30-foot lot. The family doesn’t think the house should be sold to anyone
because of the state of disrepair. They tried to see if Habitat for Humanity wanted to renovate it, but
they turned down the offer. If the house is demolished, the lot would be considered unbuildable because
it doesn’t meet the 40 foot minimum lot width. If the City accepts the donation, there would be three
options:
1.Leave it as an open lot
2.Sell to owners on either side (one of which is going into foreclosure)
3.The Council could at some time in the future grant a variance for building a new home on the site.
The worst case scenario is that the City will expend between $10,000-$15,000 to have it demolished, and
may not see a cash return on that expense.
Clark said the family does not want any formal recognition except for a city resolution for tax purposes.
Clark is asking the EDA if they are interested in accepting the donation.
Diehm felt we have to accept such an offer. If we could possibly recover any of the expenses incurred, it
would be great, but she said we can’t allow this property to go back on the market.
Nawrocki stated that the County has the property valued at $103,000 and that the taxes are current. He
suggested getting someone in there to write up an estimate on what it would cost to renovate the
property.
Clark said the amount of time it would take to write up specs and arrange for bids would be a waste of
staff’s time and money.
Szurek thought we should accept the donation and tear it down. She pointed out that an appraiser valued
it at $32,000 and that Habitat already turned down the offer as it wasn’t worth renovating.
Herringer asked if the date of construction was 1916. Clark told him that was correct. He thought it
should be torn down if the walls are buckling and there is no insulation. It doesn’t sound like it would be
worth repairing.
26
Economic Development Authority Minutes
Page 6
June 23, 2009
Rental information per EDA Request—
Clark stated that Diehm had asked staff to look into how other cities restrict the number of rental
units in their cities. He passed out a map showing the number of rental units we had prior to
September 2008, compared to the number we have added since that time. He said we estimated an
additional 100 new rental properties would be added in 2009 and we have already added about 80
during the first 6 months. He went on to explain that staff obtained information from Winona and
Duluth and that both cities approach the restrictions from a Zoning standpoint rather than a licensing
one. Winona doesn’t allow more than 30% rental properties in a given block. And Duluth’s policy
established for the East Side is that no single family home can have a rental license if there is another
one within 300 feet. However, Apartments and Duplexes are excluded from this rule. Clark said they
treat it as a land use and density issue, rather than a licensing one.
Nawrocki asked how a block was defined. Is it lots that back up to each other or both sides of a
street? Staff will have to call Winona to see if it is defined as it wasn’t provided in the information
they sent. He stated he is in favor of limiting the number of rentals somehow. However, he was
concerned with people who have their home for sale and have been unable to sell it so they rent it out
until it does sell. How do we stop owners from doing that as it could force more foreclosures if we
prevent them from renting out their property.
Diehm requested staff prepare another map that show the apartments and duplexes colored differently
from the single family homes being rented. She believes we should attempt to restrict the number of
rental licenses and the new map should give us a better idea of the concentration rate throughout the
city.
Update on Open House
—
Cartney explained that the meeting will be run differently from last year with the hope that we will
get more balanced feedback by using a more controlled approach. Therefore, the following will be
provided to each person who attends:
1.Packets will be prepared for each person
2.An agenda with ground rules will be enclosed
3.Picture boards will be used so visual examples can be shown on what would require a correction
4.A power point presentation will be made
5.Index cards will be provided to submit questions on
6.A summary will be made
7.Questions and Answers will be allowed at the end with a specific time limit allowed.
The EDA packets contained a chart showing the different cities that have some type of inspection program at
the time of sale and the comparisons of each program. Nawrocki noticed the fees varied and wondered if the
inspections were also different. Sheila explained that yes, they are different. Some cities are using the
International Property Maintenance Code which is more restrictive than what we have. Each city adopts
whatever code they wish to use. Ours is based on our Property Maintenance Code. Some use a Truth in
Housing format which is similar to the Disclosure Form filled out if sold by a Realtor. This just informs the
buyer of the condition, but does not require corrections be made before selling (except for Hopkins that does
require corrections).
27
Economic Development Authority Minutes
Page 7
June 23, 2009
Nawrocki said the Council received an e-mail from Donna Schmitt suggesting the 10 am meeting on
th
Monday June 29 be broadcast on Cable to get the information to the public. Clark said he already spoke to
Linda Magee about this and we have no staff that is able to telecast that meeting. Several meetings are being
held so if the public wishes to attend they have three meetings to pick from.
Update on Properties Purchased—
4135 Jefferson St It was listed for $79,000—then it was raised by a Realtor to $129,000—it is being sold
“as is”. It is destroyed, full of junk and the basement has been used as a bathroom. We
have offered $32,500
4448 Quincy St Listed for $29,900—we made full offer. Neighbors could smell odors from outside.
This will go to the City Council in July for approval.
4030 Quincy St We made an offer on this one, but were too late. It has been sold. It has an addition
that was built without permits. We will get into this one because it is posted as an
abandoned property.
nd
4450 Van Buren St Listed for $79,000—made offer of $35,000 which was rejected—made 2 offer of
$39,500 and they countered with $55,000 which we will reject. There was a water
break in it so the house is full of mold, the paint and ceilings are peeling and sheetrock
is warped. We also will be able to get into this one as it is posted as an abandoned
property. This one has a nice 60 ft lot.
Sheila also gave an update on the properties Anoka County has been purchasing with the NSP funding.
Anoka County’s policy is if the renovations will amount to more than $26,000, a lead abatement is required
for the entire house and that gets too costly, so those properties are then demolished. Nawrocki wanted to
know what company they are working with for the renovations, and thought that they could give us bids on
some of the houses we are buying. Clark explained that Anoka County does a RFP and enters into a contract
with whatever company they choose, and it could not include properties we own. We would need to go
through the same process.
Diehm asked staff to prepare a map showing the properties the City owns and the properties being purchased
by the County. She would also like the map to detail which ones are being demolished by the County, and
which ones are being renovated.
th
Nawrocki asked about the 37 & Central Project-nothing new to report
Burger King Property-We are in the process of having a concept remediation action plan prepared.
K-Mart site-Clark said Developer is still working on getting this project off the ground, but he doesn’t have
any new information.
7.OTHER BUSINESS
The next regular EDA meeting will be Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at Parkview Villa.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley Hanson
Secretary
28
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2009
7:00 PM
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Vice Chair-Donna Schmitt.
Commission Members present- Schmitt, Peterson, and Thompson.
Commission Members absent-Szurek, Fiorendino
Also present were Gary Peterson (Council Liaison), Jeff Sargent (City Planner), and Shelley Hanson
(Secretary).
Motion by Peterson, seconded by Thompson, to approve the minutes from the meeting of August 5, 2009.
All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE NUMBER: 2009-0901
APPLICANT: Filfillah Restaurant
LOCATION: 4301 Central Ave
REQUEST:Site Plan Approval for Shared Parking
INTRODUCTION
The Filfillah Restaurant and new grocery store will be opening at 4301 Central Avenue. In order to satisfy
their parking requirements, the storeowners will need to share some of the parking provided by the
Laundromat to the north. The City Code has a provision to allow this, however, before this can occur the
City Council needs to approve the request through a Site Plan Approval process.
The applicant submitted an application to get onto the September 1, 2009 Planning and Zoning
Commission agenda. However, despite several conversations with the applicant, staff has been unable to
obtain enough information to formally process the request. Thus, the application is considered incomplete.
For this reason, staff recommends to table the application to the October 6, 2009 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting, to give the applicant ample time to submit the necessary information.
Thompson asked if the monument sign meets the setback requirements. Sargent responded that the sign
was already approved through the site plan process.
Motion by Thompson, seconded by Peterson, to table Case No. 2009-0901 to the October 6, 2009 Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting in order to give the applicant ample time to submit the necessary
application materials. All Ayes. MOTION PASSED.
29
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 2
SEPTEMBER 1, 2009
CASE NUMBER: 2009-0902
APPLICANT:Tim Sullivan
th
LOCATION: 1201 – 45 Avenue NE
REQUEST: 11-foot front yardsetback variance for a deck
INTRODUCTION
At this time, the applicant is requesting an 11-foot front yard setback variance per Code Section 9.106
(B)(8), in order to construct a new deck. The City’s Zoning Code requires that the residential front yard
setback shall be the average depth of all buildings within 200 feet of the lot in question and within the same
block front, plus or minus 10% of the average depth. The average setback of all the houses within 200 feet
th
of the subject parcel, and on the same block front, is 35.8 feet. The house at 1201 – 45 Avenue is set back
32.8 feet from the front property line. The applicant is requesting to construct a deck that will extend 10
feet closer to the front property line than where the current house is situated. For this reason, an 11-foot
front yard setback variance is required.
ZONING ORDINANCE
th
The property at 1201 – 45 Avenue is located in the R-2A, One and Two Family Residential District, as are
th
the properties in the immediate vicinity. The subject parcel is a corner lot on the corner of 45 Avenue and
th
Fillmore Street. Per Zoning Code definitions, the front yard is that yard abutting 45 Avenue, and any
proposed construction in the front yard would be subject to the front yard averaging requirements.
The current dwelling has two points of entry into the front of the house. Historically, the west door had
concrete steps and the east door had wooden steps with a small landing for egress into the house. The steps
and landing for the west entry were in need of repair and have recently been removed. The applicant would
like to construct the deck for both aesthetic and functional purposes. He stated that it would look better and
make more sense if there was one set of steps for both entries rather than having two separate sets of stairs.
The deck would also add aesthetic value to the property and curb appeal.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan guides this area as residential. A variance to allow an addition to a preexisting
residential dwelling would be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan guiding of the area.
30
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 3
SEPTEMBER 1, 2009
FINDINGS OF FACT (Variance)
Section 9.104 (G) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines five findings of fact that must be met in order for the
City Council to grant a variance. They are as follows:
a)Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or
other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the provisions of this
article would cause undue hardship.
The applicant would like to add a deck to the house. Because of the situation of the house on the
property and a steep grade differential towards the rear of the property, placing a deck on the rear
of the house would be impractical. Placing the deck on the front of the house would also enable the
homeowner to tie-in the two front entrances, making the property more aesthetically pleasing and
functional.
b)The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land
involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning
classification.
The placement of the house on the property, along with the topography of the land is a unique
situation.
c)The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions of this article and has not been created by
any person currently having a legal interest in the property.
The hardship was created by the original construction of the house and placement of the house on
the lot. The applicant did not have a legal interest in the property at the time of its construction.
d)The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
comprehensive plan.
The Comprehensive Plan guides this area as residential. A variance to allow an addition to a
preexisting residential dwelling would be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan
guiding of the area.
e)The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements in
the vicinity.
The granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental; rather it would create more
value to the property, thus enhancing the neighborhood.
Staff recommends approval of the 11-foot front yard setback variance for the construction of a new deck
th
located at 1201 – 45 Avenue NE.
Questions from members:
Peterson asked what the size of the proposed deck would be. Sargent explained it would be approximately
20 feet long and 10 feet out from the house. He then asked what the difference is between a porch and a
deck and if this would set a precedent for the rest of the neighborhood if this was approved. Sargent
explained the setbacks are basically the same for a deck or a porch. If this is approved, it would alter the
front yard setback for the neighbors by a small amount based on the average depth calculation used.
31
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 4
SEPTEMBER 1, 2009
Sargent pointed out there is a uniqueness to this lot and that topography creates a hardship for this parcel
that is required in order to meet the criteria for a variance. Peterson thought the deck would be
aesthetically pleasing for the neighborhood and agreed that the variance should be granted.
Schmitt asked the owner, Tim Sullivan, what type of material he would be using to construct the deck. He
said he is considering cedar or composite decking materials.
Public Hearing Opened.
No one wished to speak further on this matter.
Public Hearing Closed.
Motion by Peterson, seconded by Thompson, that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the 11-foot front yard setback variance for the construction of a new deck per Code
Section 9.106 (B)(8) of the City Code, subject to certain conditions of approval that have been found to be
necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning and
Development Ordinance, including:
1.All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted with the
application shall become part of the permit.
2.The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to the construction of the deck.
All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-XXX
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE
FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONS
OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE
FOR TIM SULLIVAN
WHEREAS
, a proposal (Case # 2009-0902) has been submitted by Tim Sullivan to the City Council requesting a
variance from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site:
th
ADDRESS: 1201 – 45 Avenue NE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: An 11-foot front yard setback variance for the
construction of a deck per Code Section 9.106 (B)(8).
WHEREAS,
the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on September
1, 2009;
WHEREAS
, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission
regarding the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its
Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concern related to traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to
public safety, in the surrounding area;
32
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 5
SEPTEMBER 1. 2009
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights that the City
Council accepts and adopts the following findings of the Planning Commission:
1.Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other
conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, where strict adherence to the provisions of this
Ordinance would cause undue hardship.
2.The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land involved and
are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification.
3.The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions of this Ordinance and has not been created by any
person currently having legal interest in the property.
4.The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive
Plan.
5.The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially
injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements in the vicinity.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED
, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become part of this
variance and approval; and in granting this variance the city and the applicant agree that this variance shall become
null and void if the project has not been completed within one (1) calendar year after the approval date, subject to
petition for renewal of the permit.
CONDITIONS ATTACHED:
1.All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted with the application shall
become part of the permit.
2.The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to the construction of the deck.
CASE NUMBER: 2009-0903
APPLICANT: City of Columbia Heights
REQUEST: Zoning Amendment for Smoke Shops
BACKGROUND
Sargent explained that on May 26, 2009, the City Council issued a six-month emergency moratorium on
smoke shops within the City of Columbia Heights. Prior to the moratorium, the City of Columbia Heights
had four (4) licensed smoke shops, one (1) pending application, and three (3) other applications for a smoke
shop distributed but not yet formally applied for. This equaled a potential of eight (8) smoke shops in the
City of Columbia Heights’ commercial corridor, with the possibility of additional stores based on existing
vacancies.The moratorium has given staff time to study the effects of multiple smoke shop uses within a
small geographic commercial corridor.
The State of Minnesota’s Freedom to Breathe Act (FBA) was established to prohibit people from smoking
inside buildings open to the public. A provision of the FBA allows patrons of smoke shop establishments
to sample tobacco products inside the building prior to purchasing the merchandise for personal use. The
intent of this provision was to give patrons an opportunity to purchase the type of tobacco they desired, not
to give smoke shops the discretion to operate a smoking parlor.
33
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 6
SEPTEMBER 1, 2009
City Staff feels strongly about preserving the intent of the Freedom to Breathe Act, which attempts to
increase the quality of life and public welfare by banning smoking in public places. The Freedom to
Breathe Act, however, does not implicitly define the term “sampling”. For this reason, it becomes
extremely difficult to enforce the FBA when smoke shops allow multiple patrons to “sample” tobacco
products in their store for long periods of time.
For this reason, staff recommends a zoning amendment that would prohibit the sampling of tobacco and/or
tobacco-related products within smoke shops and other public buildings. The State’s Clean Indoor Act at
Section 144.417 Subd. 4 (a) allows Columbia Heights to enact and enforce more stringent measures to
protect individuals from secondhand smoke. Staff will also recommend a Municipal Code amendment that
would establish a new tobacco license specific to smoke shops, thus differentiating them from tobacco
licenses given to gas stations, convenience stores, etc. The amendment would also limit the number of
licenses issued in a year to smoke shops to five (5).
Staff conducted a survey of 5 other cities to determine how many licenses each city has issued for smoke
shop uses. A smoke shop is defined as a retail business in which no less than 90% of the retail sales derive
from the sale of tobacco or tobacco related products. The results are as follows:
City of Crystal : 1
City of New Hope: 1
City of Robbinsdale: 1
City of Fridley: 1
City of New Brighton: 0
Staff feels that allowing a high number of businesses that promote an unhealthy lifestyle usually evidences
a less viable economic environment and is not conducive to a strong economic commercial future.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to enhance the economic viability of the community. The
proposed amendment would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because limiting the number of
smoke shop licenses would improve the economic viability of the City.
An overarching goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to ensure the safety and welfare of the general public.
By adhering to the intent of the Freedom to Breathe Act and by disallowing sampling or any type of
smoking in a public building, compliance with the Comprehensive Plan will be met.
ZONING ORDINANCE
Currently, the Zoning Ordinance allows smoke shops as retail establishments in the LB, Limited Business,
GB, General Business, and CBD, Central Business Districts as a permitted use. The proposed amendment
would still allow for smoke shops as a permitted use in all commercial districts, however more specified
regulations would be placed on smoke shops by subjecting them to some Specific Development Standards.
These specific regulations include:
a.The smoke shop must have an entrance door opening directly to the outdoors.
b.The primary revenue for the business is generated from the sale of tobacco, tobacco products or
smoking related accessories.
c.A tobacco department or section of any individual business establishment with any type of liquor,
food or restaurant license shall not be considered a smoke shop.
34
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 7
SEPTEMBER 1, 2009
d.Sampling of lighted tobacco products is prohibited at all times.
e.The total number of City-issued Smoke Shop Licenses shall at no time exceed five (5).
f.Any existing smoke shops at the time of the passage of this ordinance shall comply fully with the
ordinance by December 31, 2010.
The intent of this ordinance is to ensure that at no point will there be more than five (5) smoke shop
licenses issued throughout the City.The existing four smoke shops in the City at the time of the passage of
this ordinance will be counted towards the five smoke shop maximum.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 9.104 (F) of the Columbia Heights zoning code requires that the City Council make each of the
following four findings before approving a zoning amendment:
1.The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to enhance the economic viability of the community.
The proposed amendment would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because limiting the
number of smoke shop licenses would improve the economic viability of the City.
An overarching goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to ensure the safety and welfare of the general
public. By adhering the to intent of the Freedom to Breathe Act and by disallowing sampling or any
type of smoking in a public building, compliance with the Comprehensive Plan will be met.
2.The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property
owner.
The proposed amendment would affect all commercially zoned properties throughout the city and is
not solely for the benefit of a single property owner.
3.Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, the existing
use of the property and the zoning classification of property within the general area of the
property in question are compatible with the proposed zoning classification.
The amendment would not change the zoning classification of a particular property.
4.Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, there has
been a change in the character or trend of development in the general area of the property in
question, which has taken place since such property was placed in the current zoning
classification.
The amendment would not change the zoning classification of a particular property.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Amendment.
Questions from members:
Schmitt asked what other types of businesses we currently have limits on? Sargent stated that we limit the
number of Pawn Shops, and Consignment or Secondhand Merchants, and there are restrictions on Liquor
Licenses being issued if they do not meet the minimum distance requirements from a school.
35
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 8
SEPTEMBER 1, 2009
Thompson asked if this matter is being addressed because of City Council direction or if staff is the driving
force behind this. He agreed that five smoke shops is probably enough in the community, but that these
businesses draw people from outside the community to ours and that may be advantageous to other
businesses in town. He went on to say there is a lot of vacant retail space, and that some business is better
than no businesses at all. Thompson also felt that it is a contradiction for the City to be concerned about
promoting the general health of its residents and the community in this case, when it owns and operates
Municipal Liquor stores. He also asked if the City has received any complaints from members in the
community regarding the smoke shops we currently have licensed. And lastly, he asked why there had to
be a doorway directly to the outside for these businesses.
Sargent said the door to the outside is a requirement for Smoke Shops in the State’s Freedom to Breathe
Act (FBA). This would make our Ordinance consistent with the State’s requirements. Sargent stated that
the City Council voted unanimously to place a moratorium in effect on May 26, 2009, and directed staff to
do research and bring back a recommendation to the Council on how to bring our local Ordinances/Code
into compliance with the Freedom to Breathe Act and to add whatever language we needed to in order to
comply with the intent of the law. Staff was directed to consider the economic issues as well as the image
or reputation of the City in the process. Sargent stated the main reason in placing the moratorium was the
amount of time it would take to enforce the FBA by our Police Department due to the high number of
smoke shops we have compared to other surrounding communities. It is the Police Chief’s and Community
Development staff’s opinion that “sampling” is being abused by some of the licensed establishments in the
city, and the City doesn’t have the manpower and means to police this. The intent of the law was to
provide an opportunity for someone to sample a certain tobacco for purchase to be smoked elsewhere. This
exception is not being used as intended, and therefore, creates policing issues. It is staff’s opinion that if
we eliminate the “sampling” provision, we get rid of enforcement issues and fully comply with the FBA.
This would not interfere with the smoke shops ability to sell tobacco products, which is what they are
licensed for. Sargent reminded the members that according to the State Law, 90% of the revenue for these
smoke shops is supposed to be from the retail sale of tobacco, they are not supposed to be smoking lounges.
Sargent said staff recommended limiting the number of smoke shops to 5 because we currently have 4
licensed and we had one pending at the time the moratorium was put in place. The four licensed shops
would have first option each year to renew their license before any new ones would be considered.
Thompson thought that allowing five shops was fair, and that the shops were allowed one year to comply
with the listed restrictions was also fair. He was concerned that other drug paraphernalia may be sold at
these establishments. Sargent said it is illegal to do so, and that a couple sites in town (albeit, not licensed
smoke shops) have been cited for violating this.
Peterson struggled with this issue because he recognized the intent of the new Ordinance is for the good of
the community, but also hated infringing on someone’s freedom of choice. He asked why we have to make
these restrictions if there haven’t been any complaints. Sargent explained it is because some of the
businesses are violating the intent of the FBA act. The State failed to define “sampling”, but allowed cities
to further restrict and define matters in order to protect individuals from secondhand smoke as mandated in
the FBA. Peterson also questioned whether other cities were having a difficult time with enforcement.
Sargent explained that most of the other cities only have one smoke shop. Columbia Heights currently has
4, which means we have a much higher concentration of this type of business than other surrounding cities.
Again, Sargent said we are not eliminating smoke shops, just the maximum number and the ability to
“sample” inside the shops.
36
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 9
SEPTEMBER 1, 2009
Peterson doesn’t think smoke shops or liquor stores are good for the City’s image. He also realizes the
country is moving toward a “no smoking” stance and that there are huge campaigns to encourage people to
quit and to prevent young people from starting. He would like to table the matter for further thought and
input from the missing commission members.
Schmitt doesn’t see a problem with limiting the number to 5. She has a problem with not allowing
sampling. People who frequent those places are over 18, are already smokers, and have made their choices.
She suggested ventilation requirements as the answer. Sargent said that option was considered, but the
expense and velocity of the systems that would be required for a smoking lounge were not very workable.
He pointed out that if the businesses are operating as they are supposed to, by selling out the door, and not
operating as a smoking lounge, air ventilation would not be an issue. Smoking lounges are not a permitted
use under the FBA, so to require additional ventilation would be difficult.
There was a discussion on the possibility of all 5 licenses being issued to one owner. Since all four licenses
are issued to different individuals now, that seemed unlikely to happen.
Public Hearing Opened.
Alex Baudron (Sp?) an attorney representing Hookah Kingdom and Hookah Paradise was present. He
claimed his biggest concern was never being contacted about “sampling”, about law enforcement concerns,
and about having proper notice of the meeting (although he admitted to his clients receiving a notice last
week about the meeting). He said there seems to be some confusion with the State’s FBA and how
businesses should operate, and that the state created a grey area. In response to Schmitt’s comment earlier,
Baudron believes the requirement for a separate door was to provide for ventilation for sampling purposes.
Schmitt responded that she thought sampling was very well explained at the City Council meeting a while
back, probably when the moratorium was put in place.
Sargent said that is one of the reasons they are recommending a better definition of what “Sampling” is and
that the State made a provision for cities to do that in order to comply with the intent of the FBA.
John Kradik-3932 Longfellow St, Minneapolis, worked with lobbyists at the State level on this bill. He is
concerned with the comments that enforcement seems to be the issue and too much time is spent on
enforcing the FBA. He didn’t understand why the City is trying to be pro-active if there haven’t been any
complaints.
Members discussed their options. Sargent explained that the Commission is supposed to make a
recommendation to the City Council, who must hold two readings and then there is a 30 day waiting period
before an Ordinance goes into effect. Therefore, if a recommendation is made tonight, any Ordinance
change would not take affect until the end of October. We should have an Ordinance in place before the
moratorium expires in November. The Planning Commission stated that the City Council will review this
matter and make the final decision regardless of the Commission’s recommendation.
37
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 10
SEPTEMBER 1, 2009
Mayor Peterson said he remembers the separate door being a requirement for Hookah Kingdom to get their
license. Sargent stated that all the present license holders do meet the separate door requirements. Mayor
Peterson said he believes the general consensus is everyone is fine with limiting the number of licenses to
five. It seems the issue with the members is “Item D” of the Zoning Ordinance amended proposal (to allow
sampling of lighted tobacco). Thompson and Peterson agreed with Mayor Peterson.
Sargent said if the recommendation of the commission is to allow sampling then to make a motion to leave
the current Ordinance as is because it meets FBA requirements, and to just limit the number of licenses for
smoke shops to five.
Public Hearing Closed.
Motion by Schmitt, seconded by Thompson, to adopt the guidelines of the FBA and to limit the number of
smoke shop licenses to five. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
Sargent will put language into our present Ordinance to meet FBA guidelines and this matter will be
discussed by the City Council September 14, 2009.
NEW BUSINESS
None at this time.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley Hanson
Secretary
38
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: September 14, 2009
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER
NO: Community Development APPROVAL
ITEM: Approval of an 11-foot front yard average BY: Jeff Sargent, City Planner BY:
th
setback variance for a deck at 1201 – 45DATE: September 3, 2009
Ave.
BACKGROUND:
At this time, the applicant is requesting an 11-foot front yard setback variance per Code Section 9.106 (B)(8), in
order to construct a new deck. The City’s Zoning Code requires that the residential front yard setback shall be the
average depth of all buildings within 200 feet of the lot in question and within the same block front, plus or minus
10% of the average depth. The average setback of all the houses within 200 feet of the subject parcel, and on the
th
same block front, is 35.8 feet. The house at 1201 – 45 Avenue is set back 32.8 feet from the front property line.
The applicant is requesting to construct a deck that will extend 10 feet closer to the front property line than where the
current house is situated. For this reason, an 11-foot front yard setback variance is required.
The current dwelling has two points of entry into the front of the house. Historically, the west door had concrete
steps and the east door had wooden steps with a small landing for egress into the house. The steps and landing for
the west entry were in need of repair and have recently been removed. The applicant would like to construct the
deck for both aesthetic and functional purposes. He stated that it would look better and make more sense if there was
one set of steps for both entries rather than having two separate sets of stairs. The deck would also add aesthetic
value to the property and curb appeal. This is the only location for a deck on the property as there are grade
differences that would disable a deck to be placed elsewhere.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing for the request on September 1, 2009. They voted to
recommend City Council approval of the variance with a 3-0 vote.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move
to waive the reading of Resolution 2009-135, there being ample copies available to the public.
Move
to adopt Resolution No. 2009-135, approving an 11-foot front yard average setback variance for the
th
construction of a deck at 1201 – 45 Avenue, subject to the conditions outlined in Resolution No. 2009-135.
Attachments: Resolution 2009-135; P+Z Memo; Location Map; Site Plan; Letter from applicant
COUNCIL ACTION:
39
ESOLUTION NO. 2009-135
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE
FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONS
OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE
FOR TIM SULLIVAN
WHEREAS
, a proposal (Case # 2009-0902) has been submitted by Tim Sullivan to the City Council
requesting a variance from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site:
th
ADDRESS: 1201 – 45 Avenue NE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: An 11-foot front yard setback
variance for the construction of a deck per Code Section 9.106 (B)(8).
WHEREAS,
the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning
Code on September 1, 2009;
WHEREAS
, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning
Commission regarding the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the
community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concern related to traffic, property values,
light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety, in the surrounding area;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights
that the City Council accepts and adopts the following findings of the Planning Commission:
1.Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography,
or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, where strict adherence to the
provisions of this Ordinance would cause undue hardship.
2.The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land
involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning
classification.
3.The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions of this Ordinance and has not been
created by any person currently having legal interest in the property.
4.The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
5.The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or
improvements in the vicinity.
40
Resolution No. 2009-135 Page 2
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED
, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become
part of this variance and approval; and in granting this variance the city and the applicant agree that
this variance shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one (1)
calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit.
CONIDTIONS ATTACHED:
1.All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted with the
application shall become part of the permit.
2.The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to the construction of the deck.
th
Passed this 14 day of September, 2009
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call: Ayes: Nays:
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
City Clerk
Tim Sullivan Date
41
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING REPORT
CASE NUMBER: 2009-0902
DATE: September 1, 2009
TO: Columbia Heights Planning Commission
APPLICANT: Tim Sullivan
th
LOCATION: 1201 – 45 Avenue NE
REQUEST: 11-foot front yard setback variance for a deck
PREPARED BY: Jeff Sargent, City Planner
INTRODUCTION
At this time, the applicant is requesting an 11-foot front yard setback variance per Code
Section 9.106 (B)(8), in order to construct a new deck. The City’s Zoning Code requires
that the residential front yard setback shall be the average depth of all buildings within
200 feet of the lot in question and within the same block front, plus or minus 10% of the
average depth. The average setback of all the houses within 200 feet of the subject
th
parcel, and on the same block front, is 35.8 feet. The house at 1201 – 45 Avenue is
set back 32.8 feet from the front property line. The applicant is requesting to construct a
deck that will extend 10 feet closer to the front property line than where the current
house is situated. For this reason, an 11-foot front yard setback variance is required.
ZONING ORDINANCE
th
The property at 1201 – 45 Avenue is located in the R-2A, One and Two Family
Residential District, as are the properties in the immediate vicinity. The subject parcel is
th
a corner lot on the corner of 45 Avenue and Fillmore Street. Per Zoning Code
th
definitions, the front yard is that yard abutting 45 Avenue, and any proposed
construction in the front yard would be subject to the front yard averaging requirements.
The current dwelling has two points of entry into the front of the house. Historically, the
west door had concrete steps and the east door had wooden steps with a small landing
for egress into the house. The steps and landing for the west entry were in need of
repair and have recently been removed. The applicant would like to construct the deck
for both aesthetic and functional purposes. He stated that it would look better and make
more sense if there was one set of steps for both entries rather than having two
separate sets of stairs. The deck would also add aesthetic value to the property and
curb appeal.
42
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission September 1, 2009
th
1201 – 45 Avenue – Deck Variance Case # 2009-0902
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan guides this area as residential. A variance to allow an
addition to a preexisting residential dwelling would be consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan guiding of the area.
FINDINGS OF FACT (Variance)
Section 9.104 (G) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines five findings of fact that must be met
in order for the City Council to grant a variance. They are as follows:
a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration,
topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict
adherence to the provisions of this article would cause undue hardship.
The applicant would like to add a deck to the house. Because of the situation of
the house on the property and a steep grade differential towards the rear of the
property, placing a deck on the rear of the house would be impractical. Placing
the deck on the front of the house would also enable the homeowner to tie-in the
two front entrances, making the property more aesthetically pleasing and
functional.
b) The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific
parcel of land involved and are generally not applicable to other properties
within the same zoning classification.
The placement of the house on the property, along with the topography of the
land is a unique situation.
c) The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions of this article and has
not been created by any person currently having a legal interest in the
property.
Page 2
43
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission September 1, 2009
th
1201 – 45 Avenue – Deck Variance Case # 2009-0902
The hardship was created by the original construction of the house and
placement of the house on the lot. The applicant did not have a legal interest in
the property at the time of its construction.
d) The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of the comprehensive plan.
The Comprehensive Plan guides this area as residential. A variance to allow an
addition to a preexisting residential dwelling would be consistent with the intent of
the Comprehensive Plan guiding of the area.
e) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of
property or improvements in the vicinity.
The granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental; rather it would
create more value to the property, thus enhancing the neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the 11-foot front yard setback variance for the
th
construction of a new deck located at 1201 – 45 Avenue NE.
Motion:
That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
11-foot front yard setback variance for the construction of a new deck per Code Section
9.106 (B)(8) of the City Code, subject to certain conditions of approval that have been
found to be necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the
provisions of the Zoning and Development Ordinance, including:
1. All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted
with the application shall become part of the permit.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to the construction of the deck.
ATTACHMENTS
Draft Resolution
Location Map
Site Plan
Letter from applicant
Page 3
44
1201-45THAVENUE
6464146364637
4636
4
4633
4637
4643
4630
0
4631
4641
4630
4633
8
4635
4624
4626
4625
4624
4629
4621
4618
4619
4616
0
4617
4612
4615
8
4612
4
46134610
2
4609
4608
4608
4607
4606
6
46054606
46034602
4602
2
4603
11011111
4601
4601
4600
0
46TH
AVE
4558
6
45574555
4556
0
45494550
4549
4548
6
4546
4543
4543
4544
4542
0
4535
4537
6
4536
4531
KEYE
4531
0
4529
4526
AVE
4534
451/2
4527
4524
6
4525
4525
4520
04521
4518
4519
4519
4516
4
4515
4514
4515
4513
4508
8
4509
4506
4510
4509
4507
45001115
1035
45TH
AVE
AVE
441/2
4414
4408
AVE
44TH
LocationMap
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: September 14, 2009
AGENDA SECTION: Consent ORIGINATING DEPT.:CITY MANAGER
NO:Community Development APPROVAL
ITEM: Demolition Bid for 4618 Polk Street and BY:BY: Scott Clark
4636 Polk Street DATE: September 10, 2009
Background Information:
The subject two lots have been purchased as part of the Sheffield area-
housing program. The next step in the process is the demolition of the properties, and fourteen bid
specification packages were sent out for quotes. The deadline for the quotes is Friday September 11,
2009, which is the day the packet goes out; therefore, the quotes will be handed out at Monday’s
meeting, where staff will make a recommendation.
The bids are for the building demolition. In addition, the other demolition costs for properties are the
utility disconnects, which includes street and curb restoration, which are done through a contract with
the Public Works Department. The costs associated with the disconnects was $3,800 total or $1,900 for
each property. The environmental survey for report was $795 total or $397.50 for each property.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff will hand out a tabulation sheet with a recommendation and
recommended motion at the meeting. Approval of this bid on Monday is necessary for an early October
demolition date.
COUNCIL ACTION:
52
(9/14/2009) Patty Muscovitz - Demo for 4618 4636 Polk.docPage 1
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: July 27,2009
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENTORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER
NO: D Community Development APPROVAL
ITEM:Demolition Bid for 4616 Polk Street and BY: Sheila Cartney BY: Scott Clark
4636 Polk StreetDATE: September 11, 2009
Background Information:
The subject two lots have been recently purchased as part of the City’s scattered site
housing program, both lots are occupied by a duplex. The next step in the process is the demolition of the
properties, and fourteen bid specification packages were sent out for quotes. On September 11, 2009 the
Community Development Department received eight bids. The low responsive bid was $20,300 from Kevitt
Excavation. We have used Kevitt Excavation on two of our previous demos. The bid summary follows:
Construction FirmEnvironmentalGeneral DemolitionTotal
Frattalone Companies$2,000$30,000$32,000
All Metro Excavation$1,700$20,000$21,700
Demo, Dig & Haul$1,600$19,400$21,000
Griffin Petroleum Services$1,705$34,840$36,545
Bolander$2,730$39,257$41,987
DMD Services, LLC$5,100$28,603$33,406
TMS Construction$2,700$25,637
Kevitt Excavating$3,200$17,100$20,300
The above total bids are for the building demolition. In addition, the other demolition costs for properties are the
utility disconnects, which includes street and curb restoration, which are done through a contract with the Public
Works Department. The costs associated with the disconnects was $3,800 ($1,900 each). On average, the overall
demolition costs for these properties will be about $12,500 each ($25,000 total), including the environmental
survey. Community Development Block Grant money will be used for this demolition.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends issuing the demolition contract to Kevitt Excavating, LLC based on
signing and meeting all of the requirements of the Work Agreement, as stated in the bid specification package.
Recommended Motion
: Move to approve the demolition contract for Kevitt Excavating LLC, in the amount of
$20,300 for properties located at 4618 Polk Street and 4636 Polk Street.
COUNCIL ACTION:
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: September 14, 2009
AGENDA SECTION: Consent ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S
NO: Recreation & Library APPROVAL
ITEM: Grant agreement with ISD #13 for BY: Keith Windschitl & BY:
st
21 Century Community Learning Centers M. Rebecca Loader DATE:
Grant DATE: 9/14/09
NO:
Background:
The Recreation Department and Library are requesting approval to enter into a grant agreement for
st
funds awarded by the 21 Century Community Learning Centers Grant, administered by the Minnesota
Department of Education, to Independent School District #13 (ISD #13). The same grant has been
utilized in prior years, but the State Department of Education is now requiring a written agreement for
the arrangement.
The grant is for the purpose of providing certain youth academic and enrichment programs. These
activities include, but need not be limited to:
Recreation:
School Out Field Trips
Moonshoe Players
Wild Wednesdays
Theater in the Park
TNT
SPARKS
Adventure Days
Library:
Culture and the Arts activities
READ Dogs
Summer Reading Programs
Eligible expenses incurred by the City Recreation Department to provide the above program
activities will be reimbursed by ISD #13 quarterly, not to exceed the following:
$45,000 for the 2009-2010 school year
$45,000 for the 2010-2011 school year
$45,000 for the 2011-2012 school year
No matching funds are required.
Eligible expenses incurred by the City Library to provide the above program activities will be
reimbursed by ISD #13 quarterly, not to exceed the following:
$12,000 for the 2009-2010 school year
$12,000 for the 2010-2011 school year
53
$12,000 for the 2011-2012 school year
No matching funds are required.
Recommended Motion:
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2009-132, there being ample copies available
to the public.
MOTION: Adopt Resolution No. 2009-132, being a resolution authorizing Execution of Agreement
with Independent School District #13.
COUNCIL ACTION:
54
Resolution No. 2009-132
Authorizing Execution of Agreement
With Independent School District #13
Be it resolved
that the City of Columbia Heights will enter into a cooperative
agreement with Independent School District #13 for funds awarded by the
st
21 Century Community Learning Centers Grant, administered through the Minnesota
Department of Education.
Mayor Gary L. Peterson and City Manager Walter R. Fehst are hereby authorized to
execute such agreements and amendments, as are necessary to implement the project on
behalf of the City of Columbia Heights.
th
Passed this 14 day of September, 2009
Offered by:
Second by:
Roll Call:
I certify that the above resolution was adopted by the City of Columbia Heights on
September 14, 2009.
______________________________
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
_______________________
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
City Clerk
________________________
Date
55
56
57
58
59
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: _9/14/2009______
:
AGENDA SECTION:CITY MANAGER
CONSENT
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS
Xcel Energy Efficiency Project at Public BY: K. HansenBY:
ITEM:
DATE: 9/03/2009DATE:
Works: Main Floor Lighting
Background:
Staff continues to explore ways to save energy costs at Public Works. 33 Metal Halide (MH) high bay lights at
400 watts each currently light the main shop floor. Staff contacted the Center for Energy and Environment
(CEE), which works with Xcel Energy to provide audits and access to rebate programs. CEE performed a
lighting system analysis and made a recommendation based on the findings – report attached.
The analysis recommended that the existing 400-watt MH fixtures be replaced with T8 36W 4-foot fluorescent
bulbs, which are more energy efficient and provide the same amount of light. A sample fixture has been in
place for the past several months and staff’s response to the amount and type of light has been favorable. The
existing MH have diminished over time and produce a slightly yellow hue light, while the fluorescent are a
more white light, providing truer colors. MH lighting also decays over time, decreasing the light intensity. The
bulb cost for replacement is also approximately 50% less with fluorescent, per fixture.
1.Total cost of the project is $8,727 before rebates. Rebates of $3,667 would put the final cost at $5,059.
2.The payback would be 2.5 years, with an annual estimated savings of $2,037.
Public Works has $6,500 budgeted in the 2009 Central Garage budget for overhead lighting replacement.
Recommended Motion:
Move to approve the replacement of 33 400watt Metal Halide light fixtures with
33 high intensity fluorescent lights, with funding provided through the Public Works Central Garage budget,
701-49950-4000, under the Xcel Energy project as outlined by the Center for Energy and Environment.
Attachments: CEE report for Public Works
KH:kh
COUNCIL ACTION:
60
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of September 14, 2009
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S
NO: Library APPROVAL
ITEM: Xcel Energy Efficiency Project at BY: M. Rebecca Loader BY:
Library DATE: 8-26-09 DATE:
NO:
Background:
Staff is exploring ways to save energy costs at the Library. Before ordering replacement
fluorescent bulbs, Voss Electric was contacted in regards to lower wattage bulbs. The representative,
who had recently worked with the Minneapolis Public Library to re-lamp their downtown facility,
referred staff to the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE), which works with Xcel Energy to
provide audits and access to rebate programs. CEE performed a lighting system analysis and made a
recommendation based on the findings.
Analysis/Conclusion:
The analysis recommended that the existing T8 32W 4’ bulbs be replaced with
T8 25W 4’ bulbs, which are more energy efficient and provide the same amount of light. Four of the
recommended bulbs were given to staff to use in fixtures to compare the amount of light produced. No
difference could be observed.
1.All lamps would be replaced.
2.Nine exit signs, which are original to the various construction times of the building, would be
replaced with LED fixtures.
3.Three incandescent fixtures in the magazine storage area would be replaced with energy efficient
fluorescent fixtures.
4.All prices are “turn-key.”
5.Total cost of the project is $5,456.66 before rebates. Rebates of $2,084.30 would put the final cost
at $3,372.36.
6.The payback would be 2.9 years, with an annual estimated savings of $1,171.22.
Due to the low cost, energy savings, and payback of under three years, staff is requesting approval of
the Xcel Energy project as outlined by the Center for Energy and Environment to replace all existing
lamps, nine exit signs, and three fluorescent fixtures. The Columbia Heights Public Library Board of
Trustees has reviewed the proposal and recommends that the cost of the project be financed from 411
(General Government Buildings).
Recommended Motion:
Move to approve the replacement of all lamps, nine exit signs, and three
incandescent fixtures at the Library under the Xcel Energy project as outlined by the Center for Energy
and Environment, and for financing to come from fund 411 (General Government Buildings).
COUNCIL ACTION:
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: 9/14/09
:
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENTCITY MANAGER
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
NO:
PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM:BY: KBY:
ACCEPTANCE OF A MATCHING GRANT IN . Hansen
THE AMOUNT OF $31,682.50 (each) FOR PLAYGROUND DATE:
DATE: 9/10/09
EQUIPMENT IN HUSET WEST AND RAMSDELL PARKS
Background:
In July of 2008, one of the owners from Jeff Bobby and Steve’s AutoWorld attended the Park & Recreation
Commission meeting to discuss a donation for playground equipment through their youth foundation. The Commission
indicated Huset Park West was the appropriate area for equipment replacement. A plan was developed that included a
new picnic shelter and new playground equipment that would replace the old equipment that was removed when Huset
Parkway was constructed.
Analysis/Conclusions:
Recently, staff was made aware of a grant program through a playground equipment manufacturer, Gametime, for a
50/50 cost share grant for new playground equipment. The grant recipient pays for tax and shipping. The grants are on
a first come first serve basis and equipment must be delivered in 2009. The grant program is relatively new and is not
available every year. The intent of the program is to fight childhood obesity through playground activities (see
th
attached award letters). Under this grant program, orders must be placed by September 30 of 2009.
Staff applied for the grant based upon the Huset Park West plan and from the intent from AutoWorld to donate funds
supporting the same. Staff also applied for the grant for Ramsdell Park, based upon the Master Plan approved in 2009.
Ramsdell was budgeted in 2009 for redevelopment but delayed due to 2009 financial considerations. Staff has
requested funding in the 2010 Public Works budget for Ramsdell Park redevelopment, which has not been reviewed or
approved by the Council. The equipment would then be stored until 2010 when it may be installed for any level of
redevelopment authorized by the Council.
Recommended Motion:
Move to accept the grant for Huset Park West in the amount of $31,682.50,
appropriating matching funds of $38,502.89 from the Park Development Fund 412, and furthermore
authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same.
Recommended Motion:
Move to accept the grant for Ramsdell Park in the amount of $31,682.50,
appropriating matching funds of $38,502.89 from the Park Development Fund 412, and furthermore
authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same.
KH:kh
Attachment(s): Gametime Grant Award
Equipment Order Forms (2)
Equipment layout brochures (2)
COUNCIL ACTION:
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: _9/14/2009______
:
AGENDA SECTION:CITY MANAGER
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM:BY: K. HansenBY:
ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER ALLEY LIGHTING DATE: 8/28/2009DATE:
Background:
Staff is requesting the City Council establish a Public Hearing date for formal consideration of assessing a
night watch man light to benefited properties, as requested by petition.
The proposed light is located in the alley. The petition is for one 100watt HPS light to be installed on an
nd
existing pole behind 3906 2 Street.
There will be 4 parcels included in the assessment. Of these 4 parcels, 3 property owners signed the petition
in favor of installing the alley light.
Recommended Motion:
Move to establish Monday, October 12, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. as a Public Hearing for
nd
consideration of alley lighting behind 3906 2 Street.
Attachments: Map
Petition
COUNCIL ACTION:
88
îÒÜ ÍÌ
Óß×Ò ÍÌ
ÍÌ
ÝßÔ×ÚÑÎÒ×ß
90
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of September 14, 2009
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENTORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY
FireMANAGER
NO:APPROVAL
ITEM:Rental Housing BY: Gary Gorman BY:
Licenses
DATE: September 8, 2009 DATE:
NO:
Approval of the attached list of rental housing applications. They have met the
requirements of the Property Maintenance Code.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the items listed for rental housing
license applications for September 14, 2009.
COUNCIL ACTION
:
91
List of 2009 Rental Licenses to Approve
Occupany I.D.Property Owner Name
10500Anoka County Community Action Program
Property Address:
4349 5TH ST NE
10504Anoka County Community Action Program
Property Address:
4304 5TH ST NE
20120Newport Investments,LLC.
Property Address:
679 46TH AVE NE - 681 46th Avenue
20171Applegate Management Company
Property Address:
4650 WASHINGTON ST - 4652 NE Washington ST
20181Applegate Management Company
Property Address:
4654 WASHINGTON ST
30017Lynde Investment Company, LLP
Property Address:
4050 4TH ST NE
30018Gauvette Park, LLC c/o Bailey Enter
Property Address:
233 42ND AVE NE
10151Mary Blood
Property Address:
4126 CLEVELAND ST NE
10151Charles Blood
Property Address:
4126 CLEVELAND ST NE
20025Clifford Boyum
Property Address:
4855 5TH ST NE - 4857 5th Street
20111Clifford Boyum
Property Address:
4028 CLEVELAND ST NE - 4030 Cleveland Street
10148Ricardo Cadmen
Property Address:
1131 40TH AVE NE
10220Michael Cavier
Property Address:
4950 MONROE ST
20261Charles Chen
Property Address:
1207 43 1/2 AVE NE - 1209 43-1/2 Avenue
20158Dee Coghill
Property Address:
4000 CLEVELAND ST NE - 4002 Cleveland Street
Page
09/08/200912:111
92
List of 2009 Rental Licenses to Approve
Occupany I.D.Property Owner Name
12011Roger Collins
Property Address:
1077 POLK CIR - 1075 Polk Circle
10248Carlos Curran
Property Address:
4735 UPLAND CRST NE
10007Marilyn Dalseth
Property Address:
4607 PIERCE ST
20262John Egelkrout
Property Address:
4307 7TH ST NE - Up/Down
12206William Farrey
Property Address:
1110 43 1/2 AVE NE - 1112 43-1/2 Avenue
20000Karen & Bill Frauly
Property Address:
4622 JOHNSON ST NE - 4624 Johnson Street
20076Karen & Bill Frauly
Property Address:
4636 JOHNSON ST NE - 4638 Johnson Street
10063Dena Froiland
Property Address:
4721 5TH ST NE
10140-RYArvella Greenway
Property Address:
3807 GAUVITTE ST NE
20300Thomas Gromek
Property Address:
4340 QUINCY ST - 4342 NE Quincy ST
34010-NCBadrul Hassan
Property Address:
1733 37TH AVE NE - 1731 37th AVE
10141Dave Holt
Property Address:
1221 44 1/2 AVE NE
20129Joe Hoyle
Property Address:
627 51ST AVE NE - 629 51st Avenue
10296William D. Hunt
Property Address:
1037 43RD AVE NE
10006Ruano Javier
Property Address:
4036 WASHINGTON ST
Page
09/08/200912:112
93
List of 2009 Rental Licenses to Approve
Occupany I.D.Property Owner Name
20077Chad Jirasek
Property Address:
4630 WASHINGTON ST - 4632 NE WASHINGTON ST
30023Ross Johnson
Property Address:
4226 4TH ST NE
10091John Krebsbach
Property Address:
4915 5TH ST NE
10206Ruth Kulzer
Property Address:
3801 BUCHANAN ST NE
10176Susan Leem
Property Address:
4030 7TH ST NE
20258Willam Lucking
Property Address:
1027 43 1/2 AVE NE - 1029 NE 43-1/2 AVE
10016Marcea Mariani
Property Address:
4007 MAIN ST NE
10102Lawrence McCallum
Property Address:
4911 CENTRAL AVE NE
20178Duncan McClellan
Property Address:
4420 MONROE ST - 4422 Monroe Street
10138Omar Merhi
Property Address:
1022 42 1/2 AVE NE
10304Deane Millington
Property Address:
4204 7TH ST NE
10135Adegbola Ogundipe
Property Address:
4427 MONROE ST
30426Feriz Palic
Property Address:
1035 PETERS PL
12223Laura Pham
Property Address:
4935 TYLER ST - 1005 Lincoln Terrace
10123Kathy Rudnitski
Property Address:
5122 7TH ST NE
Page
09/08/200912:113
94
List of 2009 Rental Licenses to Approve
Occupany I.D.Property Owner Name
10126Deloris Sauers
Property Address:
1011 41ST AVE NE
12202Thomas Schlachtenhaufen
Property Address:
4838 UPLAND CRST
10106Walter Sentyrz
Property Address:
3721 VAN BUREN ST
20020Leland Stauch
Property Address:
4545 FILLMORE ST - 4547 Fillmore Street
30038Edward Ukatu
Property Address:
615 40TH AVE NE
12153Albert Urspringer
Property Address:
3719 HAYES ST NE
10129Robert Williams
Property Address:
4151 STINSON BLVD
10204Jon Williams
Property Address:
3922 ARTHUR ST NE
10033Cherie Wyman
Property Address:
1316 43RD AVE NE
Page
09/08/200912:114
95
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: September 14, 2009
AGENDA SECTION:ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER
NO:License Department APPROVAL
ITEM: License Agenda BY: Shelley Hanson DATE:
NO:DATE: September 9, 2009 BY:
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Attached is the business license agenda for the September 14, 2009 Council meeting. This agenda
consists of applications for Contractor licenses for 2009.
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 September 14, 2009 as
presented.
COUNCIL ACTION:
96
TO CITY COUNCIL September 14, 2009
*Signed Waiver Form Accompanied Application
CONTRACTOR’S LICENSES 2009
BLDG Walker Roofing 2274 Capp Rd, St Paul $60
*Fairmont Fire Systems 209 Downtown Plaza, Fairmont $60
th
*Air Comfort Specialists 662 116 Lane NE, Blaine $60
Walker Plumbing 24049 Irish Ave, Forest Lake $60
*Jay’s Plumbing 25 So. Sutton Lake Blvd, Jordan $60
*Foremost Mechanical 1636 Gervais, Maplewood $60
*Hoffman Refrigeration 5660 Memorial Ave N, Stillwater $60
st
*Modern Heating 2318 1 St NE, Mpls $60
Scenic Plumbing Inc 1347 Carriage Hills Dr, Cambridge $60
*Golden Valley Htg 5182 W Broadway, Crystal $60
*Siding Sales & Service 716 Co Rd 1, Blaine $60
*West Air Inc 11184 River Rd NE, Hanover $60
th
*Forced Air One 6768 158 Ln NW, Ramsey $60
*Hometown Plumbing 13025 Central Ave, Blaine $60
*Superior Plumb & Sewer 21066 Taylor St, E Bethel $60
Matt’s Tree Service 2751 Hennepin Ave, Mpls $60
*Arp’s Tree Service 17845 Hanson Blvd, Andover $60
97
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
COUNCIL MEETING OF: September 14, 2009 .
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Motion to approve payment of bills out of the proper funds, as listed in the attached
check register covering Check Number 131601through 131818 in the
amount of $ 1,474,726.32 .
These checks have been examined and found to be legal charges against the CITY OF
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, and are herby, recommended for payment.
98
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of September 14, 2009
AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY
FireMANAGER
NO:APPROVAL
ITEM:Adopt Resolution For BY: Gary Gorman BY:
Revocation
DATE: September 8, 2009DATE:
NO:09-139 to 09-140
Revocation of the license to operate a rental unit within the City of Columbia Heights is
requested against rental properties at
th
2009-139 – 4928 4 Street
2009-140 – 3809 Buchanan Street
for failure to meet the requirements of the Residential Maintenance Codes.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to close the public hearing and to waive the reading of
Resolution Numbers 2009-139, and 140 being ample copies available to the
public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution Numbers 2009-139, and
140 being Resolutions of the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights approving
revocation pursuant to City Code, Chapter 5A, Article IV, Section 5A.408(A) of the rental
licenses listed.
COUNCIL ACTION
:
108
RESOLUTION 2009-139
Resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights approving revocation
pursuant to City Code, Chapter 5A, Article IV, Section 5A.408(A) of that certain residential
rental license held by Pamela Fergus (Hereinafter "License Holder").
th
Whereas, license holder is the legal owner of the real property located at 4928 4 Street N.E.
Columbia Heights, Minnesota,
Whereas, pursuant to City Code, Chapter 5A, Article IV, Section 5A.408(B), written notice
setting forth the causes and reasons for the proposed Council action contained herein was
given to the License Holder on August 24, 2009of an public hearing to be held on
September 14, 2009.
Now, therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the
City of Columbia Heights, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.That on or about August 11, 2009 inspection office staff sent a letter requesting the
owner of the property to submit a rental license application and schedule a rental
inspection for this property. The letter was mailed by regular mail to the owner at
the address listed in the property records.
2.That onAugust 24, 2009 inspection office staff reviewed the property file and noted
that the property remained unlicensed. A Statement of Cause was mailed by regular
mail to the owner at the address listed in the property records.
3.That based upon said records of the Enforcement Office, the following conditions
and violations of the City’s Residential Maintenance Code were found to exist, to-
wit:
a.Failure to schedule a rental property inspection.
b.Failure to submit renewal rental license application and fees
4.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, Chapter 5A, Article III 5A.306 and 5A.303(A).
ORDER OF COUNCIL
1. The rental license belonging to the License Holder described herein and identified by
license number U4928 is hereby revoked;
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
109
day of posting of this Order revoking the license as held by License Holder.
Passed this _______ day of _______ 2009
Offered by:
Second by:
Roll Call:
_____________________________
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
______________________________
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
City Clerk
110
RESOLUTION 2009-140
Resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights approving revocation
pursuant to City Code, Chapter 5A, Article IV, Section 5A.408(A) of that certain residential
rental license held by Terrence F. Jones (Hereinafter "License Holder").
Whereas, license holder is the legal owner of the real property located at 3809 Buchanan
Street N.E. Columbia Heights, Minnesota,
Whereas, pursuant to City Code, Chapter 5A, Article IV, Section 5A.408(B), written notice
setting forth the causes and reasons for the proposed Council action contained herein was
given to the License Holder on August 27, 2009of an public hearing to be held on
September 14, 2009.
Now, therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the
City of Columbia Heights, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.That on or about August 13, 2009 inspection office staff sent a letter requesting the
owner of the property to submit a rental license application and schedule a rental
inspection for this property. The letter was mailed by regular mail to the owner at
the address listed in the property records.
2.That onAugust 27, 2009 inspection office staff reviewed the property file and noted
that the property remained unlicensed. A Statement of Cause was mailed by regular
mail to the owner at the address listed in the property records.
3.That based upon said records of the Enforcement Office, the following conditions
and violations of the City’s Residential Maintenance Code were found to exist, to-
wit:
a.Failure to schedule a rental property inspection.
b.Failure to submit renewal rental license application and fees
4.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, Chapter 5A, Article III 5A.306 and 5A.303(A).
ORDER OF COUNCIL
1. The rental license belonging to the License Holder described herein and identified by
license number U3809 is hereby revoked;
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
111
day of posting of this Order revoking the license as held by License Holder.
Passed this _______ day of _______ 2009
Offered by:
Second by:
Roll Call:
_____________________________
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
______________________________
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
City Clerk
112
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of September 14, 2009
AGENDA SECTION: PublicORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY
Hearings FireMANAGER
NO:APPROVAL
ITEM:Adopt Resolution ForBY: Gary Gorman BY:
Abatement
DATE: September 8, 2009DATE:
NO:09-142 to 09-145
Declaration of a nuisance and abatement of violations within the City of Columbia
Heights is requested regarding properties at
th
2009-142 – 1140-42 45 Avenue
2009-143 – 1204-06 Cheery Lane
2009-144 – 3961 Johnson Street
2009-145 – 4030 Quincy Street
for failure to meet the requirements of the Residential Maintenance Code.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to close the public hearing and to waive the
reading of Resolution Numbers 2009-142, 143, 144, and 145 there being ample
copies available to the public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution Numbers 2009-142,
143, 144, and 145 being resolutions of the City Council of the City of Columbia
Heights declaring the properties listeda nuisance and approving the abatement of
violations from the properties pursuant to City Code section 8.206.
COUNCIL ACTION
:
113
RESOLUTION 2009-142
Resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights declaring the property a nuisance
and approving abatement of ordinance violations pursuant to Chapter 8, Article II, of City Code, of
the property owned by Eric Betzler (Hereinafter "Owner of Record").
th
Whereas, the owner of record is the legal owner of the real property located at 1140-42 45 Avenue
N.E., Columbia Heights, Minnesota.
And whereas, pursuant to Columbia Heights Code, Chapter 8, Article II, Section 8.206, written
notice setting forth the causes and reasons for the proposed council action contained herein was sent
via regular mail to the owner of record on August 24, 2009.
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 15, 2009 an inspection was conducted on the property listed above. Inspectors
found one violation. A compliance order was sent via regular mail to the owner at the
address.
2.That on August 24, 2009 inspectors re-inspected the property listed above. Inspectors noted
that one violation remained uncorrected. A compliance order and statement of cause was
mailed via regular mail to the owner listed in the property records.
3.That on September 4, 2009 inspectors reinspected the property and found that one violation
remained uncorrected.
4.That based upon said records of the Fire Department, the following conditions and violations
of City Codes(s) were found to exist, to wit:
A.Shall remove the dead tree in the front yard
5.That all parties, including the owner of record and any occupants or tenants, have been given
the appropriate notice of this hearing according to the provisions of the City Code Section
8.206(A) and 8.206(B).
CONCLUSIONS OF COUNCIL
th
1.That the property located at 1140-42 45 Avenue N.E. is in violation of the provisions of the
Columbia Heights City Code as set forth in the Notice of Abatement.
2.That all relevant parties and parties in interest have been duly served notice of this hearing,
and any other hearings relevant to the abatement of violations on the property listed above.
3. That all applicable rights and periods of appeal as relating to the owner of record, occupant,
or tenant, as the case may be, have expired, or such rights have been exercised and
completed.
114
ORDER OF COUNCIL
th
1.The property located at 1140-42 45 Avenue N.E. constitutes a nuisance pursuant to City
Code.
2.That a copy of this order shall be served upon all relevant parties and parties in interest.
Passed this _______ day of _______ 2009
Offered by:
Second by:
Roll Call:
_____________________________
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
______________________________
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
City Clerk
115
RESOLUTION 2009-143
Resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights declaring the property a nuisance
and approving abatement of ordinance violations pursuant to Chapter 8, Article II, of City Code, of
the property owned by Travis J. Kline (Hereinafter "Owner of Record").
Whereas, the owner of record is the legal owner of the real property located at 1204-06 Cheery Lane
N.E. Columbia Heights, Minnesota.
And whereas, pursuant to Columbia Heights Code, Chapter 8, Article II, Section 8.206, written
notice setting forth the causes and reasons for the proposed council action contained herein was sent
via regular mail to the owner of record on August 26, 2009.
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 August 26, 2009 the Fire Department responded to a long grass complaint at the
address listed above. Inspectors found the structure unsecured and vacant/abandoned. The
Fire Chief declared the building a nuisance in accordance with City Code and ordered an
immediate abatement and that the building be secured. The property is on the City’s
abandoned property list. The Fire Chief ordered DuAll Services to responded to the scene
and secure the building with plywood.
2.That on August 26, 2009 DuAll Services responeded to the address and secured the building
to prevent unauthorized access to the building.
3.That on August 26, 2009 the Fire Department sent statement of cause to all registered
owners of the property at the addresses listed in the Anoka County Property Records
database..
4.That based upon said records of the Fire Department, the following conditions and violations
of City Codes(s) were found to exist and have been abated, to wit:
A.Approve the immediate abatement of the hazardous situation located at 1204-06
Cheery Lane N.E.
5.That all parties, including the owner of record and any occupants or tenants, have been given
the appropriate notice of this hearing according to the provisions of the City Code Section
8.206(A) and 8.206(B).
CONCLUSIONS OF COUNCIL
1.That the property located at 1204-06 Cheery Lane N.E. is in violation of the provisions of
the Columbia Heights City Code as set forth in the Notice of Abatement.
2.That all relevant parties and parties in interest have been duly served notice of this hearing,
and any other hearings relevant to the abatement of violations on the property listed above.
3.That all applicable rights and periods of appeal as relating to the owner of record, occupant,
or tenant, as the case may be, have expired, or such rights have been exercised and
completed.
116
ORDER OF COUNCIL
1.The property located at 1204-06 Cheery Lane N.E. constitutes a nuisance pursuant to City
Code.
2.That a copy of this order shall be served upon all relevant parties and parties in interest.
Passed this _______ day of _______ 2009
Offered by:
Second by:
Roll Call:
_____________________________
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
______________________________
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
City Clerk
117
RESOLUTION 2009-144
Resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights declaring the property a nuisance
and approving abatement of ordinance violations pursuant to Chapter 8, Article II, of City Code, of
the property owned by Jose Sanisaca (Hereinafter "Owner of Record").
Whereas, the owner of record is the legal owner of the real property located at 3961 Johnson Street
N.E. Columbia Heights, Minnesota.
And whereas, pursuant to Columbia Heights Code, Chapter 8, Article II, Section 8.206, written
notice setting forth the causes and reasons for the proposed council action contained herein was sent
via regular mail to the owner of record on August 12, 2009.
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 August 12, 2009 the Fire Department responded to a long grass complaint at the
address listed above. Inspectors found the structure unsecured and vacant/abandoned. The
Fire Chief declared the building a nuisance in accordance with City Code and ordered an
immediate abatement and that the building be secured. The property is on the City’s
abandoned property list. The Fire Chief ordered DuAll Services to responded to the scene
and secure the building with plywood.
2.That on August 12, 2009 DuAll Services responeded to the address and secured the building
to prevent unauthorized access to the building.
3.That on August 12, 2009 the Fire Department sent statement of cause to all registered
owners of the property at the addresses listed in the Anoka County Property Records
database..
4.That based upon said records of the Fire Department, the following conditions and violations
of City Codes(s) were found to exist and have been abated, to wit:
A.Approve the immediate abatement of the hazardous situation located at 3961 Johnson
Street N.E.
5.That all parties, including the owner of record and any occupants or tenants, have been given
the appropriate notice of this hearing according to the provisions of the City Code Section
8.206(A) and 8.206(B).
CONCLUSIONS OF COUNCIL
1.That the property located at 3961 Johnson Street N.E. is in violation of the provisions of the
Columbia Heights City Code as set forth in the Notice of Abatement.
2.That all relevant parties and parties in interest have been duly served notice of this hearing,
and any other hearings relevant to the abatement of violations on the property listed above.
3.That all applicable rights and periods of appeal as relating to the owner of record, occupant,
or tenant, as the case may be, have expired, or such rights have been exercised and
completed.
118
ORDER OF COUNCIL
1.The property located at 3961 Johnson Street N.E. constitutes a nuisance pursuant to City
Code.
2.That a copy of this order shall be served upon all relevant parties and parties in interest.
Passed this _______ day of _______ 2009
Offered by:
Second by:
Roll Call:
_____________________________
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
______________________________
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
City Clerk
119
RESOLUTION 2009-145
Resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights declaring the property a nuisance
and approving abatement of ordinance violations pursuant to Chapter 8, Article II, of City Code, of
the property owned by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (Hereinafter "Owner of Record").
Whereas, the owner of record is the legal owner of the real property located at 4030 Quincy Street
N.E. Columbia Heights, Minnesota.
And whereas, pursuant to Columbia Heights Code, Chapter 8, Article II, Section 8.206, written
notice setting forth the causes and reasons for the proposed council action contained herein was sent
via regular mail to the owner of record on August 17, 2009.
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 August 17, 2009 the Fire Department responded to a long grass complaint at the
address listed above. Inspectors found the structure unsecured and vacant/abandoned. The
Fire Chief declared the building a nuisance in accordance with City Code and ordered an
immediate abatement and that the building be secured. The property is on the City’s
abandoned property list. The Fire Chief ordered DuAll Services to responded to the scene
and secure the building with plywood.
2.That on August 17, 2009 DuAll Services responeded to the address and secured the building
to prevent unauthorized access to the building.
3.That on August 17, 2009 the Fire Department sent statement of cause to all registered
owners of the property at the addresses listed in the Anoka County Property Records
database.
4.That based upon said records of the Fire Department, the following conditions and violations
of City Codes(s) were found to exist and have been abated, to wit:
A.Approve the immediate abatement of the hazardous situation located at 4030 Quincy
Street N.E.
5.That all parties, including the owner of record and any occupants or tenants, have been given
the appropriate notice of this hearing according to the provisions of the City Code Section
8.206(A) and 8.206(B).
CONCLUSIONS OF COUNCIL
1.That the property located at 4030 Quincy Street N.E. is in violation of the provisions of the
Columbia Heights City Code as set forth in the Notice of Abatement.
2.That all relevant parties and parties in interest have been duly served notice of this hearing,
and any other hearings relevant to the abatement of violations on the property listed above.
3.That all applicable rights and periods of appeal as relating to the owner of record, occupant,
or tenant, as the case may be, have expired, or such rights have been exercised and
completed.
120
ORDER OF COUNCIL
1.The property located at 4030 Quincy Street N.E. constitutes a nuisance pursuant to City
Code.
2.That a copy of this order shall be served upon all relevant parties and parties in interest.
Passed this _______ day of _______ 2009
Offered by:
Second by:
Roll Call:
_____________________________
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
______________________________
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
City Clerk
121
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: _9/14/2009______
:
AGENDA SECTION:CITY MANAGER
CONSENT
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS
Resolution 2009-146 requesting BY: K. HansenBY:
ITEM:
DATE: 9/10/2009DATE:
consideration of additional funding through the
2011 Metro Municipal Agreement Program
Background:
Over the last several years, the City has sought funding to replace the pedestrian bridge over TH 65 on
th
49 Avenue. Funding application has included Federal and State sources and most recently the Federal Stimulus
Program. The bridge provides a key link over a high traffic route (30,000 vehicle per day), to destination including
schools, parks and retail sites.
The City of Columbia Heights has received funding for the Gateway Pedestrian Bridge totaling $3,000,000 through
Federal Funds. The source of the funds is $475,000 of Appropriations that will authorize through the Federal process in
July of 2009, or later, and $2,520,000 through the Federal Stimulus or ARRA Funds, which should be Federally
authorized in June or July of 2009. The total project cost is estimated to be in the $3.2 to 3.4 million dollar range.
Analysis/Conclusions:
To provide additional project funding not covered by Federal Funding, staff recommends applying for funding through
MnDOT’s Cooperative Agreement Program. The Municipal Agreement Program provides funding to construction
projects that are developed and administered by local agencies and provide a benefit to both the local community and
the trunk highway system. These funds are intended to pay for a portion of the construction costs of the project. Right
of Way, Utility Relocation and Design costs are not eligible for funding. Metro District's participation in these
construction projects is based on eligibility as determined in MnDOT's Cost Participation Policy.
The City of Columbia Heights has been successful in receiving this funding with the following recently funded
projects:
1.0602: University Service Drive
2.0405: Central Avenue Storm Sewer
thrd
3.9911: Central Avenue Utilities and Streetscaping from 37 to 43 Avenues
Recommended Motion:
Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2009-146, there being ample copies available
to the public.
Recommended Motion:
Move to adopt Resolution No. 2009-146 supporting a request for the Municipal Agreement
th
Program funding for the construction of the Gateway Pedestrian Bridge over Central Avenue (TH 65) at 49 Avenue.
Attachments: Resolution 2009-146
KH:kh
COUNCIL ACTION:
122
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-146
BEING A RESOLUTION REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF
FUNDING THROUGH THE
2011 METRO MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER CENTRAL AVENUE (T.H. 65)
WHEREAS, t
he City of Columbia Heights intends to reconstruct the pedestrian bridge over
th
T.H. 65, at 49 Avenue NE;
WHEREAS,
the improvements will benefit both the City of Columbia Heights, surrounding
communities and the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,
that the City of Columbia Heights is requesting
funding for the Gateway Pedestrian Bridge in response to the Minnesota Department of
Transportation’s FY 2011 Municipal Agreement Program solicitation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall be responsible for the preliminary
engineering, project design, and permitting functions of said improvements.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if funding is provided, the City of Columbia Heights
will complete the Gateway Pedestrian Bridge project, City Project 0906.
Passed this 14th day of September 2009
Offered by:
Second by:
Roll Call:
_____________________________
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
_____________________________
Patricia Muscovitz CMC
City Clerk
123
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: September 14, 2009
AGENDA SECTION: Other Ordinances and ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:CITY MANAGER’S
ResolutionsCommunity Development APPROVAL
NO:
ITEM: 1st Reading of Ordinances 1570 and BY: Jeff Sargent, City Planner BY:
1571, being Zoning and Municipal Code
DATE: September 3, 2009
Amendment as they Relate to Smoke Shops
BACKGROUND:
The State of Minnesota’s Freedom to Breathe Act (FBA) was established to prohibit people from smoking inside
buildings opened to the public. A provision of the FBA allows patrons of smoke shop establishments to sample
tobacco products inside the building and prior to purchasing the merchandise for personal use. The intent of this
provision was to give patrons an opportunity to purchase the type of tobacco they desired, not to give smoke
shops the discretion to operate a smoking parlor.
City Staff feels strongly about preserving the intent of the Freedom to Breathe Act, which attempts to increase
the quality of life and public welfare by banning smoking in public places. The Freedom to Breathe Act,
however, does not implicitly define the term “sampling”. For this reason, it becomes extremely difficult to
enforce the FBA when smoke shops allow multiple patrons to “sample” tobacco products in their store for long
periods of time.
Therefore, staff recommends a zoning amendment that would prohibit the sampling of tobacco and/or tobacco-
related products within smoke shops and other public buildings. The State’s Clean Indoor Act at Section 144.417
Subd. 4 (a) allows Columbia Heights to enact and enforce more stringent measures to protect individuals from
secondhand smoke. Staff will also recommend a Municipal Code amendment that would establish a new tobacco
license specific to smoke shops, thus differentiating them from tobacco licenses given to gas stations,
convenience stores, etc. The amendment would also limit the number of licenses issued in a year to smoke shops
to five (5).
Staff conducted a survey of 5 other cities to determine how many licenses each city has issued for smoke shop
uses. A smoke shop is defined as a retail business in which no less than 90% of the retail sales derive from the
sale of tobacco or tobacco related products. The results are as follows:
City of Crystal : 1
City of New Hope: 1
City of Robbinsdale: 1
City of Fridley: 1
City of New Brighton: 0
Staff feels that allowing a high number of businesses that promote an unhealthy lifestyle usually evidences a less
viable economic environment and is not conducive to a strong economic commercial future.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the City Code amendment that would prohibit tobacco sampling of any kind inside
a smoke shop, as well as limit the maximum number of smoke shop licenses issued at any given time to five (5).
124
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing for the request on September 1, 2009. The
Planning Commission agreed that the maximum number of smoke shops allowed in the City should be limited to
five (5), however they felt that the City should not prohibit customers from sampling tobacco products while
inside a smoke shop. With a 3-0 vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of an ordinance change
that would adopt the guidelines of the Freedom to Breathe Act into the City Code, while limiting the total
number of smoke shops allowed in the City to five (5).
If the City Council were to agree with the Planning Commission’s recommendation, Staff would recommend that
more language be added to the proposed ordinance amendment that would further define what sampling entails.
Staff feels that a clearer definition of sampling could make the enforcement of the ordinance easier. The
proposed definition of sampling would be:
The lighting, inhalation, or combination thereof of tobacco, tobacco
SAMPLING, TOBACCO.
paraphernalia, or tobacco-related products for the purpose of testing a tobacco product prior to the sale of
such product. Tobacco sampling shall be limited to a designated area within a smoke shop of no greater
than 100 square feet in area, and no more than two (2) customers or potential customers shall engage in
sampling at any given time.
Staff has enclosed two options in relation to proposed Ordinance 1570 and 1571. Option 1 is the Staff’s
recommendation as presented to the Planning Commission. Option 2 is what the Planning Commission
ultimately recommended to the City Council. Neither option previously included the above alternative language
regarding “Tobacco Sampling”.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS
:
Move
to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1570, being ample copies available to the public.
Move
to set the second reading of Ordinance No. 1570, for Monday, September 28, 2009, at approximately 7:00
p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
Move
to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1571, being ample copies available to the public.
Move
to set the second reading of Ordinance No. 1571, for Monday, September 28, 2009, at approximately 7:00
p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
st
Attachments: Draft Ordinance 1570 and Ordinance 1571(1 Reading Format) Options 1 and 2, P+Z Report
COUNCIL ACTION
125
ORDINANCE NO. 1570
(Option 1)
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1490, CITY CODE OF
2005 RELATING TO THE USE OF SMOKE SHOPS WITHIN THE CITY OF
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Section 1:
WHEREAS,
the City of Columbia Heights promotes the health and safety of its citizens
by encouraging a healthy lifestyle; and
WHEREAS,
the City of Columbia Heights recognizes that using and promoting the use
of tobacco and tobacco related products is not conducive to a healthy lifestyle; and
WHEREAS,
the State of Minnesota has created the Freedom to Breathe Act, which
prohibits the use of tobacco or tobacco related products inside public buildings, with the
exception of smoke shops where sampling of the product may occur prior to the purchase
of the product; and
WHEREAS,
Minnesota State Statute 144.417, subd. 4 (a) allows a statutory or home
rule charter city or county from enacting and enforcing more stringent measures to
protect individuals from secondhand smoke.
Section 2:
The City of Columbia Heights does ordain:
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.103 of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to
include the following additions and deletions:
§ 9.103 DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this article, the following definitions shall apply unless the context
clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.
The lighting, inhalation, or combination thereof of
SAMPLING, TOBACCO.
tobacco, tobacco paraphernalia, or tobacco-related products for the purpose of
testing a tobacco product prior to the sale of such product.
. A retail establishment that has obtained an appropriate
SMOKE SHOP
license, in which the primary revenue for the business is generated from the sale of
tobacco, tobacco products or smoking related accessories.
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.107 (C) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to
include the following additions and deletions:
§ 9.107 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
(C)Specific development standards.The following uses are subject to specific
development standards:
(48)
Smoke Shops.
(a)The smoke shop must have an entrance door opening directly to the
outdoors.
(b)The primary revenue for the business is generated from the sale of
tobacco, tobacco products or smoking related accessories.
(c)A tobacco department or section of any individual business
establishment with any type of liquor, food or restaurant license shall not be
considered a smoke shop.
(d)Sampling of lighted tobacco products is prohibited at all times.
(e)The total number of City-issued Smoke Shop Licenses shall at no
time exceed five (5).
(f)Any existing smoke shops at the time of the passage of this
ordinance shall comply fully with the ordinance by December 31, 2010.
Section 3:
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its
passage.
First Reading: September 14, 2009
Second Reading: September 28, 2009
Date of Passage:
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
Patricia Muscovitz CMC
City Clerk
127
ORDINANCE NO. 1570
(Option 2)
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1490, CITY CODE OF
2005 RELATING TO THE USE OF SMOKE SHOPS WITHIN THE CITY OF
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Section 1:
The City of Columbia Heights does ordain:
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.103 of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to
include the following additions and deletions:
§ 9.103 DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this article, the following definitions shall apply unless the context
clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.
The lighting, inhalation, or combination thereof of
SAMPLING, TOBACCO.
tobacco, tobacco paraphernalia, or tobacco-related products for the purpose of
testing a tobacco product prior to the sale of such product. Tobacco sampling shall
be limited to a designated area within a smoke shop of no greater than 100 square
feet in area, and no more than two (2) customers or potential customers shall engage
in sampling at any given time.
. A retail establishment that has obtained an appropriate
SMOKE SHOP
license, in which greater that ninety percent (90%) of the business’s gross revenue
must be from the sale of tobacco, tobacco products or smoking related accessories.
Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.107 (C) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to
include the following additions and deletions:
§ 9.107 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
(C)Specific development standards. The following uses are subject to specific
development standards:
(48)
Smoke Shops.
(a)The smoke shop must have an entrance door opening directly to the
outdoors.
(b)Greater that ninety percent (90%) of the business’s gross revenue
must be from the sale of tobacco, tobacco products or smoking related accessories.
128
(c)A tobacco department or section of any individual business
establishment with any type of liquor, food or restaurant license shall not be
considered a smoke shop.
(d)Sampling of lighted tobacco products shall be limited to a
designated area within a smoke shop of no greater than 100 square feet in area.
(e)No more than two (2) customers or potential customers shall be
allowed to sample tobacco at any given time.
(f)The total number of City-issued Smoke Shop Licenses shall at no
time exceed five (5).
(g)Any existing smoke shops at the time of the passage of this
ordinance shall comply fully with the ordinance by December 31, 2010.
Section 2:
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its
passage.
First Reading: September 14, 2009
Second Reading: September 28, 2009
Date of Passage:
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
_______
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
_______
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
City Clerk/Council Secretary to the
129
ORDINANCE NO. 1571
(Option 1)
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1490, CITY CODE OF 2005 RELATING
TO THE USE OF SMOKE SHOPS WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Section 1:
The City of Columbia Heights does ordain:
Chapter 5, Article III, Section 5.302 of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the
following additions and deletions:
§ 5.302 DEFINITIONS.
Except as may otherwise be provided or clearly implied by context, all terms shall be given their
commonly accepted definitions. For the purpose of this article, the following definitions shall apply
unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.
COMPLIANCE CHECKS. The system the city uses to investigate and ensure that those authorized
to sell tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related devices are following and complying with the
requirements of this article. Compliance checks shall involve the use of minors as authorized by this
article. Compliance checks shall also mean the use of minors who attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco
products, or tobacco related devices for educational, research and training purposes as authorized by
state and federal laws. Compliance checks may also be conducted by other units of government for the
purpose of enforcing appropriate federal, state or local laws and regulations relating to tobacco, tobacco
products, and tobacco related devices.
INDIVIDUALLY PACKAGED. The practice of selling any tobacco or tobacco product wrapped
individually for sale. Individually wrapped tobacco and tobacco products shall include but not be
limited to single cigarette packs, single bags or cans of loose tobacco in any form, and single cans or
other packaging of snuff or chewing tobacco. Cartons or other packaging containing more than a single
pack or other container as described in this definition shall not be considered individually packaged.
LOOSIES. The common term used to refer to a single or individually packaged cigarette.
MINOR. Any natural person who has not yet reached the age of 18 years.
MOVEABLE PLACE OF BUSINESS. Any form of business operated out of a truck, van,
automobile or other type of vehicle or transportable shelter and not a fixed address store front or other
permanent type of structure authorized for sales transactions.
RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT. Any place of business where tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco
related devices are available for sale to the general public. The phrase shall include but not be limited to
grocery stores, convenience stores and restaurants.
130
SALE. Any transfer of goods for money, trade, barter or other consideration.
The lighting, inhalation, or combination thereof of tobacco, tobacco
SAMPLING, TOBACCO.
paraphernalia, or tobacco-related products for the purpose of testing a tobacco product prior to
the sale of such product.
SELF-SERVICE MERCHANDISING. Open displays of tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco
related devices in any manner where any person shall have access to the tobacco, tobacco products, or
tobacco related devices, without the assistance or intervention of the licensee or the licensee's
employee. The assistance or intervention shall entail the actual physical exchange of the tobacco,
tobacco product, or tobacco related device between the customer and the licensee or employee. The
phrase shall not include vending machines. Self-service sales are interpreted as being any sale where
there is not an actual physical exchange of the tobacco between the clerk and the customer.
A retail establishment that has obtained an appropriate license, in which the
SMOKE SHOP.
primary revenue for the business is generated from the sale of tobacco, tobacco products or
smoking related accessories.
TOBACCO or TOBACCO PRODUCTS. Any substance or item containing tobacco leaf, including
but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, snuff, fine cut or other chewing tobacco, cheroots,
stogies, perique, granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready-rubbed, and other smoking tobacco, snuff
flowers, cavendish, shorts, plug and twist tobaccos, dipping tobaccos, refuse scraps, clippings, cuttings,
and sweepings of tobacco, and other kinds and forms of tobacco leaf prepared in such manner as to be
suitable for chewing, sniffing or smoking.
TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES. Any tobacco product as well as a pipe, rolling papers or other
device intentionally designed or intended to be used in a manner which enables the chewing, sniffing or
smoking of tobacco or tobacco products.
VENDING MACHINE. Any mechanical, electric or electronic, or other type of device which
dispenses tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco related devices upon the insertion of money, tokens or
other form of payment directly into the machine by the person seeking to purchase the tobacco, tobacco
product or tobacco related device.
(Ord. 1371, passed 5-11-98)
Chapter 5, Article III, Section 5.303 of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the
following additions and deletions:
§ 5.303 LICENSE.
(A)License required. No person shall sell or offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco products, or
tobacco related device without first having obtained a license to do so from the city.
131
(B)No person shall operate a smoke shop without first having obtained
Smoke Shop License.
a Smoke Shop License to do so from the city. At any given time, there shall be no more than five
(5) Smoke Shops, all with appropriate licenses, throughout the city. Currently existing smoke
shop establishments should be granted the first preference to renew their smoke shop license if
they choose to do so.
(C)
(B) Application. An application for a license to sell tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco
related devices shall be made on a form provided by the city. The application shall contain the full name
of the applicant, the applicant's residential and business addresses and telephone numbers, the name of
the business for which the license is sought, and any additional information the city deems necessary.
Upon receipt of a completed application, the Clerk shall forward the application to the Police
Department for a background and record check prior to formal review by the City Council. If the Clerk
shall determine that an application is incomplete, he shall return the application to the applicant with
notice of the information necessary to make the application complete.
(D)
(C)Action. The City Council may either approve or deny the license, or it may delay action for
such reasonable period of time as necessary to complete any investigation of the application or the
applicant it deems necessary. If the City Council shall approve the license, the Clerk shall issue the
license to the applicant. If the City Council denies the license, notice of the denial shall be given to the
applicant along with notice of the applicant's right to appeal the City Council's decision.
(E)
(D)Term. All licenses issued under this article shall follow the calendar year with an
expiration date of December 31 of each year and are not pro-rated.
(F)
(E)Revocation or suspension. Any license issued under this article may be revoked or
suspended as provided in § 5.313.
(G)
(F)Transfers. All licenses issued under this article shall be valid only on the premises for
which the license was issued and only for the person to whom the license was issued. Change of
location or applicant will be required to be treated as a new applicant
(H)
(G)Moveable place of business. No license shall be issued to a moveable place of business.
Only fixed location businesses shall be eligible to be licensed under this article.
(I)
(H)Display. All licenses shall be posted and displayed in plain view of the general public on
the licensed premise.
(J)
(I)Renewals. The renewal of a license issued under this section shall be handled in the same
manner as the original application. The request for a renewal shall be made at least 30 days but no more
than 60 days before the expiration of the current license.
(K)
(J)Issuance as privilege and not a right. The issuance of a license issued under this article
shall be considered a privilege and not an absolute right of the applicant and shall not entitle the holder
to an automatic renewal of the license.
132
(Ord. 1371, passed 5-11-98)Penalty, see § 5.313
Chapter 5, Article III, Section 5.306 of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the
following additions and deletions:
§ 5.306 PROHIBITED SALES.
It shall be a violation of this article for any person, or employee or responsible party, to sell or offer to
sell any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device:
(A)To any person under the age of 18 years.
(B)By means of any type of vending machine.
(C)By means of self-service methods whereby the customer does not need to a make a verbal or
written request to an employee of the licensed premise in order to receive the tobacco, tobacco product,
or tobacco related device and whereby there is not a physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product,
or tobacco related device between the licensee, or the licensee's employee, and the customer. This
division shall not apply to retail stores which derive at least 90% of their revenue from tobacco and
tobacco related products and which cannot be entered at any time by persons younger than 18 years of
age.
(D)By means of loosies as defined in § 5.302.
(E)Containing opium, morphine, jimpson weed, bella donna, strychnos, cocaine, marijuana, or other
deleterious, hallucinogenic, toxic or controlled substances except nicotine and other substances found
naturally in tobacco or added as part of an otherwise lawful manufacturing process. It is not the
intention of this provision to ban the sale of lawfully manufactured cigarettes or other tobacco products.
(F)By means of tobacco samples intended to be smoked within the confines of a smoke shop.
Tobacco sampling shall be prohibited in all Smoke Shops.
(G)
(F)By any other means, to any other person, or in any other manner or form prohibited by
federal, state or other local law, ordinance provision, or other regulation.
(Ord. 1371, passed 5-11-98; Am. Ord. 1513, passed 9-25-06)Penalty, see § 5.313
Chapter 5, Article III, Section 5.311 of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the
following additions and deletions:
§ 5.311 OTHER ILLEGAL ACTS.
Unless otherwise provided, the following acts shall be a violation of this article:
133
(A)Illegal sales. It shall be a violation of this article for any person to sell or otherwise provide any
tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device to any minor.
(B)Illegal possession. It shall be a violation of this article for any minor to have in his possession
any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device. This division (B) shall not apply to minors
lawfully involved in a compliance check.
(C)Illegal use. It shall be a violation of this article for any minor to smoke, chew, sniff or otherwise
use any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device.
(D)Illegal procurement. It shall be a violation of this article for any minor to purchase or attempt to
purchase or otherwise obtain any tobacco, tobacco product or tobacco related device, and it shall be a
violation of this article for any person to purchase or otherwise obtain such items on behalf of a minor.
It shall further be a violation for any person to sell or otherwise provide any tobacco, tobacco product, or
tobacco related device to any minor, and it shall further be a violation to coerce or attempt to coerce a
minor to illegally purchase or otherwise obtain or use any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related
device. This division shall not apply to minors lawfully involved in a compliance check.
(E)Use of false identification. It shall be a violation of this article for any minor to attempt to
disguise his true age by the use of a false form of identification, whether the identification is that of
another person or one on which the age of the person has been modified or tampered with to represent
an age older than the actual age of the person.
(F)It shall be a violation of this article for any person to
Smoking inside a public building.
smoke or sample a tobacco product inside a smoke shop or other retail establishment that sells
tobacco or tobacco-related products.
(Ord. 1371, passed 5-11-98)Penalty, see § 5.313
Section 2:
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage.
First Reading: September 14, 2009
Second Reading: September 28, 2009
Date of Passage:
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
Patricia Muscovitz CMC
City Clerk
134
ORDINANCE NO. 1571
(Option 2)
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1490, CITY CODE OF 2005 RELATING
TO THE USE OF SMOKE SHOPS WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Section 1:
The City of Columbia Heights does ordain:
Chapter 5, Article III, Section 5.302 of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the
following additions and deletions:
§ 5.302 DEFINITIONS.
Except as may otherwise be provided or clearly implied by context, all terms shall be given their
commonly accepted definitions. For the purpose of this article, the following definitions shall apply
unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.
COMPLIANCE CHECKS. The system the city uses to investigate and ensure that those
authorized to sell tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related devices are following and complying
with the requirements of this article. Compliance checks shall involve the use of minors as authorized
by this article. Compliance checks shall also mean the use of minors who attempt to purchase tobacco,
tobacco products, or tobacco related devices for educational, research and training purposes as
authorized by state and federal laws. Compliance checks may also be conducted by other units of
government for the purpose of enforcing appropriate federal, state or local laws and regulations relating
to tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related devices.
INDIVIDUALLY PACKAGED. The practice of selling any tobacco or tobacco product
wrapped individually for sale. Individually wrapped tobacco and tobacco products shall include but not
be limited to single cigarette packs, single bags or cans of loose tobacco in any form, and single cans or
other packaging of snuff or chewing tobacco. Cartons or other packaging containing more than a single
pack or other container as described in this definition shall not be considered individually packaged.
LOOSIES. The common term used to refer to a single or individually packaged cigarette.
MINOR. Any natural person who has not yet reached the age of 18 years.
MOVEABLE PLACE OF BUSINESS. Any form of business operated out of a truck, van,
automobile or other type of vehicle or transportable shelter and not a fixed address store front or other
permanent type of structure authorized for sales transactions.
RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT. Any place of business where tobacco, tobacco products or
tobacco related devices are available for sale to the general public. The phrase shall include but not be
limited to grocery stores, convenience stores and restaurants.
135
SALE. Any transfer of goods for money, trade, barter or other consideration.
The lighting, inhalation, or combination thereof of tobacco,
SAMPLING, TOBACCO.
tobacco paraphernalia, or tobacco-related products for the purpose of testing a tobacco product
prior to the sale of such product. Tobacco sampling shall be limited to a designated area within a
smoke shop of no greater than 100 square feet in area, and no more than two (2) customers or
potential customers shall engage in sampling at any given time.
SELF-SERVICE MERCHANDISING. Open displays of tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco
related devices in any manner where any person shall have access to the tobacco, tobacco products, or
tobacco related devices, without the assistance or intervention of the licensee or the licensee's
employee. The assistance or intervention shall entail the actual physical exchange of the tobacco,
tobacco product, or tobacco related device between the customer and the licensee or employee. The
phrase shall not include vending machines. Self-service sales are interpreted as being any sale where
there is not an actual physical exchange of the tobacco between the clerk and the customer.
. A retail establishment that has obtained an appropriate license, in which
SMOKE SHOP
greater that ninety percent (90%) of the business’s gross revenue must be from the sale of tobacco,
tobacco products or smoking related accessories.
TOBACCO or TOBACCO PRODUCTS. Any substance or item containing tobacco leaf,
including but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, snuff, fine cut or other chewing tobacco,
cheroots, stogies, perique, granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready-rubbed, and other smoking tobacco,
snuff flowers, cavendish, shorts, plug and twist tobaccos, dipping tobaccos, refuse scraps, clippings,
cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco, and other kinds and forms of tobacco leaf prepared in such manner
as to be suitable for chewing, sniffing or smoking.
TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES. Any tobacco product as well as a pipe, rolling papers or
other device intentionally designed or intended to be used in a manner which enables the chewing,
sniffing or smoking of tobacco or tobacco products.
VENDING MACHINE. Any mechanical, electric or electronic, or other type of device which
dispenses tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco related devices upon the insertion of money, tokens or
other form of payment directly into the machine by the person seeking to purchase the tobacco, tobacco
product or tobacco related device.
(Ord. 1371, passed 5-11-98)
Chapter 5, Article III, Section 5.303 of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the
following additions and deletions:
§ 5.303 LICENSE.
(A)License required. No person shall sell or offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco products, or
tobacco related device without first having obtained a license to do so from the city.
136
(B)No person shall operate a smoke shop without first having
Smoke Shop License.
obtained a Smoke Shop License to do so from the city. At any given time, there shall be no more
than five (5) Smoke Shops, all with appropriate licenses, throughout the city. Currently existing
smoke shop establishments should be granted the first preference to renew their smoke shop
license if they choose to do so.
(C)
(B) Application. An application for a license to sell tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco
related devices shall be made on a form provided by the city. The application shall contain the full name
of the applicant, the applicant's residential and business addresses and telephone numbers, the name of
the business for which the license is sought, and any additional information the city deems necessary.
Upon receipt of a completed application, the Clerk shall forward the application to the Police
Department for a background and record check prior to formal review by the City Council. If the Clerk
shall determine that an application is incomplete, he shall return the application to the applicant with
notice of the information necessary to make the application complete.
(D)
(C)Action. The City Council may either approve or deny the license, or it may delay action
for such reasonable period of time as necessary to complete any investigation of the application or the
applicant it deems necessary. If the City Council shall approve the license, the Clerk shall issue the
license to the applicant. If the City Council denies the license, notice of the denial shall be given to the
applicant along with notice of the applicant's right to appeal the City Council's decision.
(E)
(D)Term. All licenses issued under this article shall follow the calendar year with an
expiration date of December 31 of each year and are not pro-rated.
(F)
(E)Revocation or suspension. Any license issued under this article may be revoked or
suspended as provided in § 5.313.
(G)
(F)Transfers. All licenses issued under this article shall be valid only on the premises for
which the license was issued and only for the person to whom the license was issued. Change of
location or applicant will be required to be treated as a new applicant
(H)
(G)Moveable place of business. No license shall be issued to a moveable place of
business. Only fixed location businesses shall be eligible to be licensed under this article.
(I)
(H)Display. All licenses shall be posted and displayed in plain view of the general public on
the licensed premise.
(J)
(I)Renewals. The renewal of a license issued under this section shall be handled in the same
manner as the original application. The request for a renewal shall be made at least 30 days but no more
than 60 days before the expiration of the current license.
(K)
(J)Issuance as privilege and not a right. The issuance of a license issued under this article
shall be considered a privilege and not an absolute right of the applicant and shall not entitle the holder
to an automatic renewal of the license.
(Ord. 1371, passed 5-11-98)Penalty, see § 5.313
137
Chapter 5, Article III, Section 5.309 of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the
following additions and deletions:
§ 5.309 LICENSE HOLDER RESPONSIBILITY.
(A)
It shall be the license holder's responsibility to provide training to any employee
conducting tobacco sales and/or sales of tobacco related products and devices and to document proof of
such training to be provided upon request by any enforcing agent of the city.
(B)The smoke shop license holder shall be required to provide to the city a certified
audit ensuring that greater than ninety percent (90%) of the business’s gross revenue is derived
from the sale of tobacco, tobacco products or smoking relating accessories. The sale of samples
shall not count towards the 90% criteria.
(Ord. 1371, passed 5-11-98)Penalty, see § 5.313
Section 2:
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage.
First Reading: September 14, 2009
Second Reading: September 28, 2009
Date of Passage:
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
_______
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Attest:
_______
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
City Clerk/Council Secretary to the
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING REPORT
CASE NUMBER: 2009-0903
DATE: September 1, 2009
TO: Columbia Heights Planning Commission
APPLICANT: City of Columbia Heights
LOCATION: City Wide
REQUEST: Zoning Amendment for Smoke Shops
PREPARED BY: Jeff Sargent, City Planner
BACKGROUND
On May 26, 2009, the City Council issued a six-month emergency moratorium on smoke
shops within the City of Columbia Heights. Prior to the moratorium, the City of Columbia
Heights had four (4) licensed smoke shops, one (1) pending application, and three (3) other
applications for a smoke shop distributed but not yet formally applied for. This equaled a
potential of seven (7) smoke shops in the City of Columbia Heights’ commercial corridor,
with the possibility of additional stores based on existing vacancies.The moratorium has
given staff time to study the effects of multiple smoke shop uses within a small geographic
commercial corridor.
The State of Minnesota’s Freedom to Breathe Act (FBA) was established to prohibit people
from smoking inside buildings opened to the public. A provision of the FBA allows patrons
of smoke shop establishments to sample tobacco products inside the building and prior to
purchasing the merchandise for personal use. The intent of this provision was to give
patrons an opportunity to purchase the type of tobacco they desired, not to give smoke
shops the discretion to operate a smoking parlor.
City Staff feels strongly about preserving the intent of the Freedom to Breathe Act, which
attempts to increase the quality of life and public welfare by banning smoking in public
places. The Freedom to Breathe Act, however, does not implicitly define the term
“sampling”. For this reason, it becomes extremely difficult to enforce the FBA when smoke
shops allow multiple patrons to “sample” tobacco products in their store for long periods of
time.
For this reason, staff recommends a zoning amendment that would prohibit the sampling of
tobacco and/or tobacco-related products within smoke shops and other public buildings.
146
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission September 1, 2009
City of Columbia Heights, Smoke Shops Case # 2009-0903
The State’s Clean Indoor Act at Section 144.417 Subd. 4 (a) allows Columbia Heights to
enact and enforce more stringent measures to protect individuals from secondhand smoke.
Staff will also recommend a Municipal Code amendment that would establish a new
tobacco license specific to smoke shops, thus differentiating them from tobacco licenses
given to gas stations, convenience stores, etc. The amendment would also limit the number
of licenses issued in a year to smoke shops to five (5).
Staff conducted a survey of 5 other cities to determine how many licenses each city has
issued for smoke shop uses. A smoke shop is defined as a retail business in which no less
than 90% of the retail sales derive from the sale of tobacco or tobacco related products.
The results are as follows:
City of Crystal : 1
City of New Hope: 1
City of Robbinsdale: 1
City of Fridley: 1
City of New Brighton: 0
Staff feels that allowing a high number of businesses that promote an unhealthy lifestyle
usually evidences a less viable economic environment and is not conducive to a strong
economic commercial future.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to enhance the economic viability of the
community. The proposed amendment would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
because limiting the number of smoke shop licenses would improve the economic viability
of the City.
An overarching goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to ensure the safety and welfare of the
general public. By adhering the to intent of the Freedom to Breathe Act and by disallowing
sampling or any type of smoking in a public building, compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan will be met.
ZONING ORDINANCE
Currently, the Zoning Ordinance allows smoke shops as retail establishments in the LB,
Limited Business, GB, General Business, and CBD, Central Business Districts as a
permitted use. The proposed amendment would still allow for smoke shops as a permitted
use in all commercial districts, however more specified regulations would be placed on
smoke shops by subjecting them to some Specific Development Standards. These specific
regulations include:
(a) The smoke shop must have an entrance door opening directly to the
outdoors.
Page 2
147
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission September 1, 2009
City of Columbia Heights, Smoke Shops Case # 2009-0903
(b) The primary revenue for the business is generated from the sale of
tobacco, tobacco products or smoking related accessories.
(c) A tobacco department or section of any individual business establishment
with any type of liquor, food or restaurant license shall not be considered a smoke shop.
(d) Sampling of lighted tobacco products is prohibited at all times.
(e) The total number of City-issued Smoke Shop Licenses shall at no time
exceed five (5).
(f) Any existing smoke shops at the time of the passage of this ordinance shall
comply fully with the ordinance by December 31, 2010.
The intent of this ordinance is to ensure that at no point will there be more than five (5)
smoke shop licenses issued throughout the City. The existing four smoke shops in the
City at the time of the passage of this ordinance will be counted towards the five smoke
shop maximum.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 9.104 (F) of the Columbia Heights zoning code requires that the City Council make
each of the following four findings before approving a zoning amendment:
1. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to enhance the economic viability of
the community. The proposed amendment would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan because limiting the number of smoke shop licenses would
improve the economic viability of the City.
An overarching goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to ensure the safety and welfare
of the general public. By adhering the to intent of the Freedom to Breathe Act and
by disallowing sampling or any type of smoking in a public building, compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan will be met.
2. The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a
single property owner.
The proposed amendment would affect all commercially zoned properties
throughout the city and is not solely for the benefit of a single property owner.
3. Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular
property, the existing use of the property and the zoning classification of property
within the general area of the property in question are compatible with the
proposed zoning classification.
Page 3
148
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission September 1, 2009
City of Columbia Heights, Smoke Shops Case # 2009-0903
The amendment would not change the zoning classification of a particular property.
4. Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular
property, there has been a change in the character or trend of development in
the general area of the property in question, which has taken place since such
property was placed in the current zoning classification.
The amendment would not change the zoning classification of a particular property.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Amendment.
Motion:
That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
proposed zoning amendment.
Attachments
Draft zoning ordinance
Draft municipal ordinance
Page 4
149
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: 9/14/09
:
AGENDA SECTION: WORK SESSIONCITY MANAGER
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM:BY:BY:
Refuse and Recycling Proposals: Award of Bid and K. Hansen
Authorizing Contract Development DATE:
DATE:
9/10/09
Background:
Below is a summary of our refuse services for residential properties through our current
contractor Allied Waste:
SERVICE LEVEL ADDITIONAL SERVICES
90 GAL Weekly collection w/extra bags, 1 Appliance, large items, furniture, yardwaste, weekly
2 sort recycling
60 GAL Weekly collection, 1 appliance, yardwaste, weekly 2 sort recycling
30 GAL Weekly collection, 1 appliance, yardwaste, weekly 2 sort recycling
Dumpster (all) Weekly or more, 1 Appliance/rental unit, large items, furniture, weekly or more 2 sort
recycling
th
At the April 13 Council Work Session, staff reviewed the current service levels of our Refuse/Recycling
contract with the council with anticipated rate changes of 15 – 20% from our current contractor, Allied
Waste. Staff was directed to prepare an RFP to obtain proposals from the market to obtain the lowest pricing.
The 2009 prices the City pays are $14.71/month for the average 90 gal service. This includes $2.11 for
recycling and $1.68 for yardwaste. The remaining $10.92 includes service of the container and collection of
extra bags, appliances, large items, and furniture. Apartments and other multi-dwelling (4 or more rental
units) dumpsters pay various rates according to size and collections/week, with the most used being a 1 yard
dumpster with 1/week collection at $12.55/month (which includes appliances, large items, furniture) and
$1.67/stop for recycling.
Analysis/Conclusions
: Staff prepared an RFP that requests services matching our current service levels
with 3 alternates. Staff believes it would be of value to obtain alternate bid prices that eliminates some
certain additional services to reduce the expected increase in a new contract. Below are the alternate
descriptions:
1.Remove Multi-dwelling (4 or more rental units) from contracted City service.
2.Remove Appliance, large items, furniture, rubbish, and extra bags from the regular base service charge.
3.Provide Single Sort Recycling.
th
Six contractors received copies of the RFP and four submitted proposals on August 26. Three addendums
were provided to clarify questions or provide additional information during the RFP stage. Staff has been
informed that the Anoka County disposal site, RRT, will have significant price increases (see attached RRT
th
letter dated August 13, 2009). Due to these increased rates, differing contract lengths, and sustainability of
the RRT, staff clarified in addendum 3 that the City will pay tipping fees directly, rather than having them
included in the proposal rates. THEREFORE, the rates in the attached proposals are for service only, and
COUNCIL ACTION:
150
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: 9/14/09
:
AGENDA SECTION: WORK SESSIONCITY MANAGER
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM:BY:BY:
Refuse and Recycling Proposals: Award of Bid and K. Hansen
Authorizing Contract Development DATE:
DATE:
9/10/09
disposal tipping fees will be paid by the City under a new contract. This is similar to what the City of Blaine
and North St. Paul have in their recent contracts. The Council should also be informed that the tipping fee
st
will increase in Anoka County from $35.75/ton to $52.00/ton beginning October 1 2009 through 2010. This
represents a 45% increase over the existing rates.
Veolia Environmental Services provided the apparent low bid
. A summary comparison of the rates for
residential services (does not include disposal – tipping fees are paid by the City) is as follows:
Service
Veolia Allied Waste
2010 2011 2012 20132014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
90 gal
$6.70 33701.00 6.93 7.17 7.427.68$6.97 35059.10 7.21 7.47 7.73 8.00
60 gal
$6.70 2445.50 6.93 7.17 7.427.68$6.97 2544.05 7.21 7.47 7.73 8.00
30 gal
$6.70 824.10 6.93 7.17 7.427.68$6.97 857.31 7.21 7.47 7.73 8.00
senior
$6.70 2097.10 6.93 7.17 7.427.68$6.97 2181.61 7.21 7.47 7.73 8.00
recycling
$2.70 15743.70 2.79 2.89 2.993.09$3.00 17493.00 3.11 3.21 3.33 3.44
yardwaste
$1.93 11253.83 2.00 2.08 2.152.22$2.50 14577.50 2.59 2.68 2.77 2.87
Residential
$66,065.23$72,712.57
TOTAL
Service
Walters Recycling* Waste Management
2010 2011 2012 20132014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
90 gal
$7.94 39938.20 0.00 0.00 0.000.00$7.98 40139.40 8.30 8.63 8.98 9.34
60 gal
$7.22 2635.30 0.00 0.00 0.000.00$7.93 2894.45 8.25 8.58 8.92 9.27
30 gal
$7.07 869.61 0.00 0.00 0.000.00$6.16 757.68 6.41 6.66 6.93 7.21
senior
$7.07 2212.91 0.00 0.00 0.000.00$6.16 1928.08 6.41 6.66 6.93 7.21
recycling
$3.70 21574.70 0.00 0.00 0.000.00$2.89 16851.59 3.01 3.13 3.26 3.39
yardwaste
$1.83 10670.73 0.00 0.00 0.000.00$2.78 16210.18 2.89 3.01 3.13 3.25
Residential
$77,901.45 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 $78,781.38
TOTAL
*Walters annual price increases were given as tied to the CPI.
Veolia also provided the rates for multiple dwelling service levels and other facilities, the price comparisons
are provided on the attached bid tabulation.
COUNCIL ACTION:
151
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: 9/14/09
:
AGENDA SECTION: WORK SESSIONCITY MANAGER
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM:BY:BY:
Refuse and Recycling Proposals: Award of Bid and K. Hansen
Authorizing Contract Development DATE:
DATE:
9/10/09
Alternate 1: Remove Multi-dwelling (4 or more rental units) from contracted City service. Alternate 1 did
not provide a reduction in the Veolia bid for residential service, and actually increased the bid for residential
service from Allied.
Alternate 2: Remove Appliance, large items, furniture, rubbish, and extra bags from the regular base service
charge.Again, alternate 2 did not provide a reduction in the Veolia bid for residential service. Allied’s
pricing for alternate 2 was reduced down to Veolia’s pricing for residential service container levels, but only
by removing this service.
Alternate 3: Provide Single Sort Recycling. The City of Columbia Heights past experience with single sort
recycling via a test area has been very positive. There are arguments that it may increase or decrease actual
volume of recycling (see attached memo explaining a test study from the City of White Bear Lake). A single
sort container does provide the convenience of a larger container that is picked up less frequently (every
other week). Our current contract requires all recyclables to be placed curbside for pickup – where trash is
picked up in all alleys, or curbside only where alleys don’t exist. Again, the lowest residential pricing for this
alternate was lowest from Veolia.
The primary negative
in switching to single sort is adding another heavy vehicle trip on City alleyways,
which in many cases poor condition and not designed for heavy wheel loading. If the City desires to award
this alternate, staff will need to further clarify and designate pickup routes and containers.
th
Proposals were received on Wednesday, August 26 and with an initial review conducted by staff. The
st
proposals were presented and reviewed at the council work session on August 31. Staff met with
th
representatives from Veolia on September 10 to review and validate their bid and begin discussions on a
transition and implementation plan.
Recommended Motion:
Move to accept the bids for Refuse, Recycling and Yard Waste Services and from
Veolia Environmental Solid Waste Services, based upon their low, qualified, responsible bid and,
furthermore, direct staff to prepare a 5-year contract for the base bid, and accepting alternate 3 for Single
Sort Recycling for the same.
Attachments: Bid tabulation
KH:kh
COUNCIL ACTION:
152
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: 9/14/09
:
AGENDA SECTION: BID CONSIDERATIONSCITY MANAGER
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
NO:
PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM:BY:BY:
ADOPT RESOLUTION 2009-133 BEING A K. Hansen
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING THE DATE:
DATE:
9/9/09
CONTRACT FOR 2009 SANITARY SEWER LINING, CITY
PROJECT NO. 0904 TO VISU-SEWER, INC.
Background:
On June 22, 2009 City Council authorized staff to seek bids for our annual sanitary sewer lining program.
This is an annual program to rehabilitate sections of sanitary sewer pipe that have been televised and found
to be deteriorating, have cracked or broken joints or sections, contain root intrusion or have infiltration
present. This project consists of lining the following segments:
thstnd
Line 248 L.F. of 10” VCP on 49 Avenue, 1 MN East of Tyler Street to 2 MH East of Tyler Street
ndth
Line 305 L.F. of 8” VCP on 52 Avenue, University Avenue Service Drive to 4 Street
thndstnd
Line 322 L.F. of 8” VCP on 4 Street, 52 Avenue to 1 MN North of 52 Avenue
thst
Line 400 L.F. of 8” VCP on Jefferson Street, 49 Avenue to 1 MH South of 49th Avenue
thst
Line 1,283 L.F. of 8” VCP on Easement: Jackson Street to Central Avenue, 50 to 51 Avenues
rd
Line 33 L.F. of 10” VCP on 43 Avenue at Central Avenue
rdstrd
Line 330 L.F. of 8” VCP on Northbound Central Avenue, 43 Avenue to 1 MH North of 43
th
Line 337 L.F. of 8” VCP on 44 Avenue, Tyler Street to Arthur Street
thth
Line 1,029 L.F. of 8” VCP on Hart Boulevard, 37 Avenue to 39 Avenue
Plans and specifications were advertised for bids in the Focus on August 6, 2009. Five contractors received
copies of the bidding documents. Five bids were received and publicly read aloud at the August 27, 2009
bid opening. A copy of the minutes is attached.
Analysis/Conclusions:
Visu-Sewer, Inc. submitted the low bid in the amount of $113,200. The Engineer’s Estimate was $112,000.
The Public Works sanitary sewer construction fund has $125,000 budgeted in 2009 for sanitary sewer lining.
Recommended Motion:
Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2009-133, there being ample copies
available to the public.
Recommended Motion:
Move to adopt Resolution 2009-133, being a resolution accepting bids and
awarding the contract for 2009 Sanitary Sewer Lining, City Project No. 0904 to Visu-Sewer, Inc., based
upon their low, qualified, responsible bid in the amount of $113,200. with funds to be appropriated from
Fund 652-50904-5185; and, furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a contract
for the same.
Attachment: Bid Opening Minutes & Resolution 2009-133
COUNCIL ACTION:
154
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Minutes of Bid Opening on Thursday, August 27, 2009
2009 Sanitary Sewer Lining Program
Project No. 0904
Pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Sanitary Sewer Lining, an administrative meeting was
held on August 27, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. for the purpose of bid opening. Bids were opened and read
aloud.
Attending the meeting were:
Kathy Young, Assistant City Engineer
Barb Thomas, Public Works Clerk
Tim Curry, Lametti and Sons
Babette Gunderson, Veit and Company
Matt Loberg, Visu-Sewer
Bids were opened and read aloud as follows:
Bidder Total
Visu-Sewer, Inc. $ 113,200.00
Lametti & Sons, Inc. $ 113,407.00
Veit and Company, Inc. $ 114,642.00
Insituform Technologies USA, Inc. $ 117,977.00
Michels Corporation $ 153,093.60*
* Corrected amount
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Young
Assistant City Engineer
C:\Documents and Settings\CCH-User\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.IE5\TRZQ4YX7\Bid_Opening_Minutes[1].doc
155
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-133
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING THE CONTRACT
FOR 2009 SANITARY SEWER LINING, CITY PROJECT NO. 0904
TO VISU-SEWER, INC.
City Project No. 0904, Sanitary Sewer
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for
Lining
bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. The following bids were
received complying with the advertisement:
BIDDER TOTAL
Visu-Sewer, Inc. $ 113,200.00
Lametti & Sons, Inc. $ 113,407.00
Veit and Company, Inc. $ 114,642.00
Insituform Technologies USA, Inc. $ 117,977.00
Michels Corporation $ 153,093.60
WHEREAS, it appears that Visu-Sewer, Inc. of Pewaukee, Wisconsin 53072is the lowest
responsible bidder.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA:
1.The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract
Visu-Sewer, Inc. 2009
within the name of the City of Columbia Heights, for the
Sanitary Sewer Lining, City Project No. 0904
, according to plans and specifications
therefore approved by the Council.
2.The City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to return, forthwith, to all bidders,
the deposits made with their bids except the deposit of the successful bidder and the next
lowest bidder shall be retained until the contract has been signed.
3.City Project No. 0904 shall be funded from the Sanitary Sewer Construction Fund.
th
Passed this 14 day of September, 2009
Offered by:
Second by:
Roll call:
_______________________________________
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
_______________________________
Patricia Muscovitz, CMC
City Clerk
156
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: September 14, 2009
AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY MANAGER
NO.FINANCE APPROVAL
ITEM: BEING A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A BY: WILLIAM ELRITE BY:
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 2010, SETTING
THE PROPOSED CITY LEVY, APPROVING THE HRA
DATE: 09/03/2009
LEVY, AND ESTABLISHING A BUDGET HEARING
DATE FOR PROPERTY TAXES PAYABLE IN 2010
NO:
Attached are the resolution to adopt the proposed 2010 budget, City Manager’s budget message, a four-
year budget plan, and Standard & Poor’s rating. At the work session the City Manager and Finance
Director presented the budget and levy recommendations. The 2010 budget and levy recommendations are
based on the four-year budget plan that was discussed at two work sessions and one regular City Council
meeting.
The second item to discuss is the 2010 budget review process. Last year there was one work session
dedicated exclusively to the review of the budget. This year we can present the budget to the City Council
at one work session or we can expand the number to two or three budget work sessions to allow staff more
time to present to the City Council how the cutbacks and reductions in 2009 have affected their
departments and the services they provide, as well as the effect the 2010 budget will have on departments
and services. Currently 90-92% of department budgets are for personnel costs with the remaining 8-10%
going towards utilities, supplies and the very basic items required to run the departments.
th
Below is the motion that will be presented at the September 14 City Council meeting to adopt the
proposed 2010 budget and levy. The proposed levy needs to be certified to Anoka County on or before
September 15, 2009.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2009-134 there being ample
copies available for the public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2009-134 being a resolution adopting a
proposed budget, setting the General, Library and EDA proposed levy at $8,052,142, establishing a budget
hearing date for property taxes payable in 2010 for December 14, 2009 at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers, and approving the HRA levy of $262,556.
WE:sms
0909031COUNCIL
Attachments: Resolution 2009-134
City Manager’s Budget Message
Four-year Budget Plan
Standard & Poor’s Rating
COUNCIL ACTION:
157
ê÷éíðçèóíî
ê÷éíðçèóíî
ê÷éíðçèóíîûøíìèóîõûìêíìíé÷øúçøõ÷èöíêèô÷ã÷ûê
ê÷éíðçèóíîûøíìèóîõûìêíìíé÷øúçøõ÷èöíêèô÷ã÷ûê
é÷èèóîõèô÷ìêíìíé÷øùóèã
é÷èèóîõèô÷ìêíìíé÷øùóèãð÷æãûììêíæóîõèô÷ôêûð÷æãð÷æãûììêíæóîõèô÷ôêûð÷æãûììêíæóîõûèûäêûè÷óîùê÷ûé÷ûîø÷éèûúðóéôóîõûúçøõ÷è
ûììêíæóîõûèûäêûè÷óîùê÷ûé÷ûîø÷éèûúðóéôóîõûúçøõ÷èô÷ûêóîõøûè÷öíêìêíì÷êèãèûä÷éìûãûúð÷óî
îíåèô÷ê÷öíê÷ú÷óèê÷éíðæ÷øúãèô÷ùóèãùíçîùóðöíêèô÷ùóèãíöùíðçïúóûô÷óõôèé
ïóîî÷éíèûÈÔÛÈÈÔ×ÖÍÐÐÍÅÓÎÕÓÉÔ×Ê×ÚÃÛØÍÌÈ×ØÚÃÈÔ×ùÓÈÃÍÖùÍÐÇÏÚÓÛô×ÓÕÔÈÉ
é×ÙÈÓÍÎûèÔ×ÚÇØÕ×ÈÖÍÊÈÔ×ùÓÈÃÍÖùÍÐÇÏÚÓÛô×ÓÕÔÈÉÖÍÊÈÔ×Ã×ÛÊ
ÓÉÔ×Ê×ÚÃÛÌÌÊÍÆ×ØÛÎØÛØÍÌÈ×ØÅÓÈÔ
ÛÌÌÊÍÌÊÓÛÈÓÍÎÉÖÍÊ×ÛÙÔÍÖÈÔ×ÖÇÎØÉÐÓÉÈ×ØÚ×ÐÍÅ
÷ÄÌ×ÎÉ×
õ×Î×ÊÛÐöÇÎØ
ùÍÏÏÇÎÓÈÃø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈöÇÎØ
÷ÙÍÎÍÏÓÙø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈöÇÎØ
éÈÛÈ×ûÓØ
ùÛÚÐ×è×Ð×ÆÓÉÓÍÎ
ðÓÚÊÛÊÃ
øûê÷ìÊÍÒ×ÙÈ
óÎÖÊÛÉÈÊÇÙÈÇÊ×
ùÛÌÓÈÛÐóÏÌÊÍÆ×Ï×ÎÈ
ùÛÌÓÈÛÐ÷ËÇÓÌÏ×ÎÈê×ÌÐÛÙ×Ï×ÎÈöÇÎØÉ
ùÍÎÉÈÊÇÙÈÓÍÎöÇÎØÉ
ù×ÎÈÊÛÐõÛÊÛÕ×öÇÎØ
ðÓËÇÍÊíÌ×ÊÛÈÓÎÕ
ðÓËÇÍÊùÛÌÓÈÛÐ
îÍÎíÌ×ÊÛÈÓÎÕ
åÛÈ×ÊçÈÓÐÓÈÃöÇÎØ
é×Å×ÊçÈÓÐÓÈÃöÇÎØ
ê×ÖÇÉ×öÇÎØ
éÈÍÊÏé×Å×ÊöÇÎØ
øÛÈÛìÊÍÙ×ÉÉÓÎÕ
ø×ÚÈé×ÊÆÓÙ×öÇÎØ
èÍÈÛÐ÷ÄÌ×ÎÉ×óÎÙÐÇØÓÎÕóÎÈ×ÊÖÇÎØèÊÛÎÉÖ×ÊÉ
é×ÙÈÓÍÎúèÔ××ÉÈÓÏÛÈ×ØÕÊÍÉÉÊ×Æ×ÎÇ×ÈÍÖÇÎØÈÔ×ÚÇØÕ×ÈÍÖÈÔ×ùÓÈÃÍÖé×ÙÈÓÍÎúèÔ××ÉÈÓÏÛÈ×ØÕÊÍÉÉÊ×Æ×ÎÇ×ÈÍÖÇÎØÈÔ×ÚÇØÕ×ÈÍÖÈÔ×ùÓÈÃÍÖùÍÐÇÏÚÓÛô×ÓÕÔÈÉÖÍÊÛÐÐÖÇÎØÉÓÎÙÐÇØÓÎÕ
ùÍÐÇÏÚÓÛô×ÓÕÔÈÉÖÍÊÛÐÐÖÇÎØÉÓÎÙÐÇØÓÎÕÕ×Î×ÊÛÐÛØÆÛÐÍÊ×ÏÈÛÄÐ×ÆÓ×ÉÛÎØÕ×Î×ÊÛÐÛØÆÛÐÍÊ×ÏÈÛÄÐ×ÆÓ×ÉÛÎØÇÉ×ÍÖÖÇÎØÚÛÐÛÎÙ×ÉÛÉÔ×Ê×ÓÎÛÖÈ×ÊÉ×ÈÖÍÊÈÔÖÍÊÈÔ×Ã×ÛÊ
ÇÉ×ÍÖÖÇÎØÚÛÐÛÎÙ×ÉÛÉÔ×Ê×ÓÎÛÖÈ×ÊÉ×ÈÖÍÊÈÔÖÍÊÈÔ×Ã×ÛÊ
ê×Æ×ÎÇ×
õ×Î×ÊÛÐöÇÎØ
ùÍÏÏÇÎÓÈÃø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈöÇÎØ
÷ÙÍÎÍÏÓÙø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈöÇÎØ
éÈÛÈ×ûÓØ
ùÛÚÐ×è×Ð×ÆÓÉÓÍÎ
ðÓÚÊÛÊÃ
øûê÷ìÊÍÒ×ÙÈ
óÎÖÊÛÉÈÊÇÙÈÇÊ×
ùÛÌÓÈÛÐóÏÌÊÍÆ×Ï×ÎÈÉ
ùÛÌÓÈÛÐ÷ËÇÓÌÏ×ÎÈê×ÌÐÛÙ×Ï×ÎÈöÇÎØÉ
ùÍÎÉÈÊÇÙÈÓÍÎöÇÎØÉ
ù×ÎÈÊÛÐõÛÊÛÕ×öÇÎØ
ðÓËÇÍÊíÌ×ÊÛÈÓÎÕ
ðÓËÇÍÊùÛÌÓÈÛÐ
îÍÎíÌ×ÊÛÈÓÎÕ
åÛÈ×ÊçÈÓÐÓÈÃöÇÎØ
é×Å×ÊçÈÓÐÓÈÃöÇÎØ
ê×ÖÇÉ×öÇÎØ
éÈÍÊÏé×Å×ÊöÇÎØ
øÛÈÛìÊÍÙ×ÉÉÓÎÕ
ø×ÚÈé×ÊÆÓÙ×öÇÎØ
èÍÈÛÐê×Æ×ÎÇ×óÎÙÐÇØÓÎÕóÎÈ×ÊÖÇÎØèÊÛÎÉÖ×ÊÉ
ê÷éíðçèóíî
ê÷éíðçèóíî
ê÷éíðçèóíîûøíìèóîõûìêíìíé÷øúçøõ÷èöíêèô÷ã÷ûê
ê÷éíðçèóíîûøíìèóîõûìêíìíé÷øúçøõ÷èöíêèô÷ã÷ûê
é÷èèóîõèô÷ìêíìíé÷øùóèã
é÷èèóîõèô÷ìêíìíé÷øùóèãð÷æãûììêíæóîõèô÷ôêûð÷æãð÷æãûììêíæóîõèô÷ôêûð÷æãûììêíæóîõûèûäêûè÷óîùê÷ûé÷ûîø÷éèûúðóéôóîõûúçøõ÷è
ûììêíæóîõûèûäêûè÷óîùê÷ûé÷ûîø÷éèûúðóéôóîõûúçøõ÷èô÷ûêóîõøûè÷öíêìêíì÷êèãèûä÷éìûãûúð÷óî
é×ÙÈÓÍÎùèÔ×ÖÍÐÐÍÅÓÎÕÉÇÏÉÍÖÏÍÎ×ÃÛÊ×Ð×ÆÓ×ØÖÍÊÈÔ×ÙÇÊÊ×ÎÈÃ×ÛÊÙÍÐÐ×ÙÈÛÚÐ×ÓÎ
ÇÌÍÎÈÔ×ÈÛÄÛÚÐ×ÌÊÍÌ×ÊÈÃ
ÓÎÉÛÓØùÓÈÃÍÖùÍÐÇÏÚÓÛô×ÓÕÔÈÉÖÍÊÈÔ×ÖÍÐÐÍÅÓÎÕÌÇÊÌÍÉ×É
÷ÉÈÓÏÛÈ×Øõ×Î×ÊÛÐöÇÎØð×ÆÃ
÷ÉÈÓÏÛÈ×ØðÓÚÊÛÊÃð×ÆÃ
÷ÉÈÓÏÛÈ×Ø÷øûöÇÎØð×ÆÃ
èÍÈÛÐ
é×ÙÈÓÍÎøèÔ×ùÓÈÃùÍÇÎÙÓÐÍÖÈÔ×ùÓÈÃÍÖùÍÐÇÏÚÓÛô×ÓÕÔÈÉÔ×Ê×ÚÃÛÌÌÊÍÆ×ÉÈÔ×ôÍÇÉÓÎÕÛÎØê×Ø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈ
ûÇÈÔÍÊÓÈÃèÛÄð×ÆÃÖÍÊÈÔ×ÖÓÉÙÛÐÃ×ÛÊ
ÓÎÈÔ×ÛÏÍÇÎÈÍÖ
ú÷óèöçêèô÷êê÷éíðæ÷øúãèô÷ùíçîùóðíöèô÷ùóèãíöùíðçïúóûô÷óõôèéïóîî÷éíèûèÔÛÈ
ÈÔ×ÌÇÚÐÓÙÚÇØÕ×ÈÔ×ÛÊÓÎÕÓÉÉÙÔ×ØÇÐ×ØÖÍÊø×Ù×ÏÚ×Ê
ÛÈÛÌÌÊÍÄÓÏÛÈ×ÐÃ
ÌÏÓÎÈÔ×ùÓÈÃùÍÇÎÙÓÐ
ùÔÛÏÚ×ÊÉ
ú÷óèöçêèô÷êê÷éíðæ÷øúãèô÷ùíçîùóðíöèô÷ùóèãíöùíðçïúóûô÷óõôèéùíçîèãíöûîíñû
ïóîî÷éíèûèÔÛÈÈÔ×ùÍÇÎÈÃûÇØÓÈÍÊÓÉÛÇÈÔÍÊÓÂ×ØÈÍÖÓÄÛÌÊÍÌ×ÊÈÃÈÛÄÊÛÈ×ÖÍÊÈÛÄ×ÉÌÛÃÛÚÐ×ÓÎÈÔ×Ã×ÛÊ
ÈÔÛÈÓÉÔÓÕÔ×ÊÈÔÛÎÈÔ×ÈÛÄÊÛÈ×ÙÛÐÙÇÐÛÈ×ØÖÍÊÈÔ×ùÓÈÃÖÍÊÈÛÄ×ÉÐ×ÆÓ×ØÓÎ
ÙÍÐÐ×ÙÈÛÚÐ×ÓÎ
ú÷óèöçêèô÷êê÷éíðæ÷øèÔÛÈÈÔ×ùÓÈÃÔÛÉÛØ×ËÇÛÈ×ÖÇÎØÚÛÐÛÎÙ×ÉÛÎØÊ×É×ÊÆ×ÉÈÍÌÛÃ
úÍÎØÌÊÓÎÙÓÌÛÐ
ÛÎØÓÎÈ×Ê×ÉÈÌÛÃÏ×ÎÈÉÍÎõ×Î×ÊÛÐíÚÐÓÕÛÈÓÍÎúÍÎØé×ÊÓ×É
ûÓÎÈÔ×ÛÏÍÇÎÈÍÖ
ÛÎØõ×Î×ÊÛÐíÚÐÓÕÛÈÓÍÎ
úÍÎØé×ÊÓ×É
ûÓÎÈÔ×ÛÏÍÇÎÈÍÖ
ÛÎØÈÔÛÈÈÔ×ÙÍÇÎÈÃÛÇØÓÈÍÊÓÉÛÇÈÔÍÊÓÂ×ØÈÍÙÛÎÙ×ÐÈÔ×É×úÍÎØ
ð×ÆÓ×ÉÖÍÊÈÛÄ×ÉÌÛÃÛÚÐ×ÓÎ
èÔ×ùÓÈÃùÐ×ÊÑÓÉÔ×Ê×ÚÃÓÎÉÈÊÇÙÈ×ØÈÍÈÊÛÎÉÏÓÈÛÙ×ÊÈÓÖÓ×ØÙÍÌÃÍÖÈÔÓÉÊ×ÉÍÐÇÈÓÍÎÈÍÈÔ×ùÍÇÎÈÃûÇØÓÈÍÊÍÖûÎÍÑÛ
ùÍÇÎÈÃïÓÎÎ×ÉÍÈÛ
ûÌÌÊÍÆ×ØÈÔÓÉØÛÃÍÖ
íÖÖ×Ê×ØúÃ
é×ÙÍÎØ×ØúÃ
êÍÐÐùÛÐÐûÃ×É
îÛÃÉ
ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ
ïÛÃÍÊõÛÊÃðì×È×ÊÉÍÎ
ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ
ìÛÈÊÓÙÓÛïÇÉÙÍÆÓÈÂùïù
ùÓÈÃùÐ×ÊÑ
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
2010 BUDGET MESSAGE
ThebudgetmessageanddocumenthavebeenputtogethertocomplywiththeCity
Charterandstatestatuterequirementsforprovidingbudgetinformationandadoptinga
proposedbudgetandproposedtaxlevy.UnderstatestatutestheCityofColumbia
Heights must adopt a proposed budget and a proposed tax levy and certify it to the County
AuditorsofficepriortoSeptember15.TheCitythenhasuntilDecember28toadoptand
certifyafinalbudgetandlevytotheCountyAuditorsoffice.Thefinallevycanbeless
thantheproposedlevybutitcannotbegreaterthantheproposedlevy.Basedonthis,staff
traditionallyrecommendsestablishingaproposedlevythatisadequatetocoverbudgetary
needswiththeunderstandingthatasthebudgetprocessisfinalized,theCityCouncilhas
the opportunity to reduce the final property tax levy.
Budget Format
TheCityofColumbiaHeightsbudgetispreparedanddistributedinaformatthatincludes
usefulnarrativeinformationthathighlightsdepartmentactivities,objectives,andbudget
summary.Thisformatisdesignedtoprovidetheuserofthebudgetwithamore
descriptive narrative explaining the highlights of the budget. Under this format the budget
isbrokendownintotenfunctionalareasandispreparedwithanarrativebudgetmessage
foreachoftheseareas.WhentheCityCouncilmeetswiththevariousdepartments,a
detailedbudgetworkbookwillbedistributedtotheCouncilforeachofthefunctional
areas.Theworkbookisintendedforutilizationduringtheworksessiontoprovidemore
detailforeachindividualbudget.AttheendoftheCityCouncilbudgetreviewprocess,a
summaryofthebudgetwillbeassembledfordistributiontothepublicattheCitysTruth
inTaxationhearing,whichisgenerallyheldthefirstMondayofDecember,oneweek
prior to the adoption of the budget.
Budget Overview
Historic LGA Information
Inthe1970sthestatelegislaturepassedlegislationthatcreatedLGAtocities.Withthis
legislationaformulawasdevelopedtodistributetheaidtocitiesbasedonneedandother
factors.ThroughouttheyearstheLGAformulawasverybeneficialtotheCityof
ColumbiaHeights.By2003,theCityscertifiedLGAwas$2,651,999or30%ofthe
CitysGeneralFundrevenue.Atthispoint,theCityhadbecomeveryreliantonLGAto
coverthecostsofbasic,essentialservicessuchaspolice,fireandpublicworks.In2003
whenthegovernorandstatelegislaturemadesignificantreductionstoLGA,itwas
devastatingtocitiessuchasColumbiaHeightswhowerereliantonthisaidforessential
160
services.Thealternativecitieshadwastoincreasepropertytaxleviestomaintainthe
current service level or cut essential services.
Duringtheperiodoftimefrom2003to2008theCitysLGAdroppedfrom$2,651,999to
$921,280,areductionof$1,730,719.Duringthissameperiodoftimepropertytaxlevies
wereincreasedtooffsetthelossinLGA.For2009theCityscertifiedLGAwas
$1,425,338; however, the City has been informed that the 2009 LGA will be reduced by at
least$302,379.Withthestatesongoingbudgetdeficitweareanticipatingthattheactual
lossinLGAwillbereducedevenfurtherbeforewereceiveourfinalpaymentin
December.TheCityisallowedtomakeupforlostLGAthroughspeciallevies.There
arealsospecialleviesthatapplytoColumbiaHeightsfordebtserviceandincreased
public safety personnel costs.
2010 Budget Highlights
Theattacheddetailbudgetpagescovertherecommendedincreasesanddecreasestothe
various budgets. In summary, the department proposed 2010 budget for the General Fund,
LibraryFundandtheEDAlevyis$10,897,205,whichisunderboththe2009budgetand
the goals established for the 2010 budget.
WiththelargeStateofMinnesotadeficitandtheanticipationofamajorlossinLGAfor
2009and2010,the2010budgetprocesswasstartedveryearly.StaffmetwiththeCity
CouncilataworksessiononApril6topresentthebasicplanofafour-yearbudgetthat
would include a reduction of expenses, a reduction of several city services, and a four-year
levyplanthatwouldeliminatetherelianceonLGAfortheCitysgeneraloperating
budget by the year 2013.
Ontheexpenditureside,thestartingpointwasbasedonthe2008adoptedbudget.It
shouldbenotedthatthe2008adoptedbudgetfortheGeneralFund,theLibraryFundand
theEDAlevyonlyincreasedby3.3%fromtheadopted2003budget.Subsequently,the
startingpointforthe2010budgethasonlyseenminimalincreasesthatarefarbelowthe
costoflivingforthefive-yearperiodfrom2003-2008.Thisbroughtthestartingpointfor
the2010budgetto$10,233,657.Weadded$385,000tothisamounttocoverutilitiesand
maintenanceexpensesforthenewgymnasiumandnewPublicSafetybuilding.Theonly
otheradditionwas$341,454tocovercostoflivingpayincreasesthathadalreadybeen
approvedbytheCityCouncil.Thisbroughtthecapforthe2010budgetto$10,960,111.
TheactualDepartment/CityManagerproposedbudgetfor2010is$10,897,205,whichis
$62,906 under the preliminary goal for 2010.
Ontherevenuesidewelookedattheprimarygoalofdevelopingarevenuestreamthat
wouldenabletheCitytoeliminateitsdependenceonLGAforgeneraloperations.This
willbeaccomplishedwithafour-yearlevyplanthatseessignificantdecreaseseachyear
161
in the amount of the levy increase for general operations. In 2010 the levy would increase
by10.88%,in2011itwouldincreaseby8%,andby6.35%in2012.Intheyear2013the
CitywouldnolongerbereliantonanyLGAforgeneraloperations.Inthatyearthelevy
isprojectedtoincreaseby4.98%.Theplanalsoisdependentuponusingslightlyunder
$800,000infundbalancefortheyears2010and2011andthenseeingslightincreasesto
fundbalancein2012and2013.Althoughthismayappeartobealargelevyincreasein
2010,itdoesaccomplishthegoalofbecomingindependentfromLGAwithinfouryears.
AnyLGAreceivedthatisinexcessoftheamountinthebudgetplancouldbeutilizedto
reducethedebtservicelevy,whichwouldresultinadirectreductionofpropertytaxes.
FutureLGAcouldalsobededicatedtootherusessuchascreatingacapitalbuildingfund
forthefuturereplacementofcityfacilitiesandinfrastructure.Thebottomlineisthatthe
budget that is being presented to the City Council is well within the parameters established
inthefour-yearplanasitwasdiscussedwiththeCityCouncilattheworksessionsof
April 6, May 4, and at the regular City Council meeting on May 11, 2009.
Thefour-yearbudgetplanisattachedtothismessage,asitisasignificantpartofthe
budgetdocument.AlsoattachedisacopyofStandardandPoorsrecentbondratingfor
the City of Columbia Heights. Our bond rating was upgraded two steps from an A-1 to an
AArating.IntheratingupgradeStandardandPoorsassessedtheCitysmanagement
practicesandpolicyandratedthemgood.Astrongfactorintheassessmentwasthat
the City had a four-year budget plan to deal with the loss of LGA and a long-range plan to
maintain infrastructure and essential services.
162
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
DATE: MAY 7, 2009
TO: THE HONORABLE GARY PETERSON
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
TAMI DIEHM
BRUCE KELZENBERG
BRUCE NAWROCKI
BOBBY WILLIAMS
FROM: WILLIAM ELRITE
FINANCE DIRECTOR
RE: PREPARING FOR THE 2010 BUDGET (Page 1 of 2)
th
At the work session on May 4 staff handed out information related to the preparation of the
2010 budget. Included in this was historic information regarding the budget, local government
aid (LGA), levies, and past property tax increases. It should first be noted that this presentation
only dealt with the city property tax levy that appears on the property tax statements as the city
levy. The presentation did not include the school levy, the county levy, the city HRA levy or the
county HRA levy for the city. The reason for concentrating on the city portion of the levy is that
this is the primary funding for the General and Library funds. The HRA levies are separate
levies used primarily for redevelopment within the city. As these are separate levies for a
specific purpose they can be dealt with more efficiently at another time.
Page 1 of the document shows the General and Library fund budgets for 2003 with a comparison
to 2008 and a proposed 2010 funding level. It also shows the amount of personnel expenses
along with the percent of the budget that makes up personnel. The largest departments, such as
Police and Fire, have 91% and 90% of their budget in personnel costs. Subsequently it is very
difficult to reduce budgets without reducing personnel and services provided. The reason for
using the 2003 adopted budget as a basis is that it is our highest-level budget and it is the year
that the state began to significantly reduce LGA. The next column shows the 2008 adopted
budget. As you can see, the 2008 budget only increased by $317,635 over the 2003 budget. This
is a 3.3% increase in expenditures over a five-year period. Staff is proposing that this be used as
the basis for the 2010 budget. The next column shows the 2008 budget plus City Council
approved pay increases through 2010. Using this column as the starting point in the preparation
of the 2010 budget we would be freezing expenditures at the 2008 level with the exception of the
approved pay increases. The next section, lines 34-37, shows the projection of utilities for the
new gymnasium and public safety building as an addition to the base budget for 2010. The
bottom section of this form, lines 39-48, reflects the projected revenues for 2010 through 2013
for the start of a four-year budget plan. The primary goal of this plan is to no longer be
dependent on LGA as a funding source for general operations. As you can see, in 2013 the
projected LGA for general operations is zero. Line 45 shows the effect this budget plan has on
fund balance. In 2010 we would be utilizing $689,489 of fund balance. In 2011 the fund
balance used is $99,090, then in 2012 and 2013 we begin a slow rebuilding of fund balance. The
163
Page Two
bottom two lines show the percent and amount of inflation that is built into these budgets. The
year 2010 has zero inflation, 2011 has 1%, and 2012 and 2013 have 2% inflation.
Page 2 shows the history of the city levy and what we have received in LGA from 2003 through
projected 2010. The top portion shows the years and our certified LGA and the cuts that we
have received. As you can see, on line 16 the total lost LGA from 2003 through projected 2010
is $12,020,989. When you go to the bottom section of the chart it shows our levy history for the
same period of time. Here, again, on the bottom you can see that the total revenue gained
through increased property tax levies is $12,806,045, which does fully offset the lost LGA. The
main point of this chart is that it shows that our property tax levies have basically covered and
made up for the lost LGA. The last four columns on the bottom section of the chart show the
percent of increase in the levy for 2003 through 2010. As you can see, our levy increases were
high in 2004 and 2005 to make up for lost LGA and then decreased significantly. Likewise, the
current four-year budget plan has the largest levy increase in the first year.
Page 3 shows the four-year levy plan. In this plan 2010 is the heaviest year as it covers the new
expenses for the gymnasium and public safety building as well as additional bonding to cover the
Murzyn Hall improvements and the new public safety building. In the years 2011 through 2013
the levy is increased only to replace lost LGA and to begin replacing fund balance used in 2010
and 2011. The two bottom sections of the chart reflect the levy increases broken down for
general operations and for debt. Lines 27 and 28 reflect the fund balance changes and the total
percent of levy increase for the four years. Following this plan through to 2013 will result in
2013 having a property tax levy increase of less than 5% and an increase to fund balance of
slightly over $100,000.
One of the key points of this budget plan is to remove the reliance on LGA for general
operations. The plan is based on receiving and using $425,338 in LGA for years 2010 through
2013. However, there is a possibility that we could receive more LGA in these years. If this
holds true, any additional LGA that is received can be used to reduce the city’s debt levy or put
aside in a capital building replacement fund. Any portion that is used to reduce the debt levy
will result in a direct property tax savings to the residents. For example, in 2010 the plan
projects that we will receive $425,338 in LGA. If the city receives more than that, all or a
portion of it can be used to reduce the debt levy, which will result in a reduction of the total city
property taxes to the residents. Additional LGA of $300,000 would reduce the levy by
approximately 4%.
Based on the discussions at the work sessions, staff will start preparation of the 2010 budget
based on this four-year plan.This budget will be presented to the council following the same
schedule that has been utilized in previous years.
WE:sms
0905073COUNCIL
164
ABCDEFG
City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Budget Comparison & Projection 2003 - 2010
General Fund, Library and EDA
2008 Budget
Plus Pay
General & Library Fund & EDA
Personnel
Increase
LevyFund
2003 Adopted 2008 Adopted2010 Personnel Percent of
Thru 2010
BudgetBudgetExpenseBudget
1
Mayor-Council41110211,014183,523190,778117,08961%
2
City Manager41320412,706398,026422,202390,20992%
3
City Clerk414108,10549,58852,60048,60892%
4
Finance41510643,973656,173694,978626,31790%
5
Assessing41550101,000106,415106,41500%
6
Legal Services41610196,572186,500186,50000%
7
Fire42200916,5721,159,7681,227,8851,099,41590%
8
Police421002,786,5873,075,5863,317,1203,024,18991%
9
Gen Gov Bldgs.41940158,546159,212159,21200%
10
Emergency Management4250084,97322,34423,12612,62155%
11
Animal Control4270016,15015,47015,47000%
12
Weed Control4326016,42821,49322,27612,63157%
13
Recognition/Special Events4505071,36841,70041,70000%
14
Contingencies4920050,000100,810100,81000%
15
Transfers49300480,000185,000185,00000%
16
Engineering43100319,076321,402339,357289,79685%
17
Streets43121690,319760,897787,880435,50555%
18
Street Lighting43160126,416151,167151,5446,0824%
19
Traffic Signs & Signals4317073,25181,18284,82458,78869%
20
Parks45200751,437735,514764,977475,53562%
21
Tree Trimming46102104,500128,984133,21468,27351%
22
Recreation Admin.45000224,417158,608167,790148,19088%
23
Youth Athletics4500119,70233,29334,84525,04472%
24
Adult Athletics4500325,32829,41930,15211,82439%
25
CHASE II/Youth Enrichm.4500422,16960,10462,49738,63162%
26
Travel Athletics/CHASEIII4500522,63531,13932,22717,55454%
27
Trips & Outings4503038,66657,21258,34418,27731%
28
Senior Citizens4504078,58081,68985,53962,13973%
29
Murzyn Hall45129249,022228,230239,136176,02374%
30
Library Total
45500679,700738,346772,743555,16972%
31
EDA Levy140,56978,62283,97183,971100%
32
Sub Total9,719,78110,037,41610,575,1117,801,87774%
33
34
New Expenses
35
Maint & Utilities new GYM85,000
36
Maint & Util new Pub Safety300,000
37
9,719,78110,037,41610,960,111
Total Expense Projection
38
39
Revenue & Exp Projections2010201120122013
40
Operating Levy8,052,1428,752,1429,352,1429,852,142
41
LGA425,338425,338425,3380
42
Other Revenue1,793,1421,793,1421,793,1421,793,142
43
Total Revenue10,270,62210,970,62211,570,62211,645,284
44
Expense10,960,11111,069,71211,291,10611,516,928
45
Fund Bal (Used) Increase(689,489)(99,090)279,516128,356
46
Exp Increase for Inflation
47
Percent0.0%1.0%2.0%2.0%
48
mount0109,601221,394225,822
A
165
ABCDE
City of Columbia Heights
Four year levy plan
Detail of projected levy increases
Prepared 5/4/2009
Levy Year2010201120122013
1
Purpose for levy increase
2013 does not
2
Wage Increases (approved in 2007)253,025
use any LGA
3
Utility Maintenance Expense
in the
4
New Public Safety Building300,000
operating
5 budget
New Gym85,000
6
Fund Balance used in Prior years
7
Makeup lost LGA200,000 700,000 600,000 500,000
Total Operating Levy Increase838,0258 700,000 600,000 500,000
9
Murzyn Hall Improvement levy72,640
10
Add'l Public Safety Bond (2 Million)136,000
11
Increase in Pub Safety Bond Payment304,500
12
TIF District Offset(304,500)
Total Debt Levy Increase208,64013 - - -
Total projected levy increase1,046,66514 700,000 600,000 500,000
15
16
2010201120122013
17
Prior Year City Levy7,702,362 8,749,027 9,449,027 10,049,027
18
19
Total current Year levy8,749,027 9,449,027 10,049,027 10,549,027
20
% Increase for General Operations10.88%8.00%6.35%4.98%
21
% Increase for Debt2.71%0.00%0.00%0.00%
22
% Increase for Total Levy13.59%8.00%6.35%4.98%
23
24
2010201120122013
25
Operating Levy8,052,142 8,752,142 9,352,142 9,852,142
26
Debt Levy696,886 696,886 696,886 696,886
27
Fund Balance (used) increase(689,489) (99,090) 279,516 128,356
28
% Increase for Total Levy13.59%8.00%6.35%4.98%
167
168
169
170
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of: September 14, 2009
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S
NO: Administration APPROVAL
ITEM: Appointment to Board and BY: Walt Fehst BY:
Commissions DATE: September 8, 2009 DATE:
NO:
Background:
On August 10, 2009 and August 31, 2009 the City Council interviewed candidates interested in
appointments to City Boards and Commissions.
Current City of Columbia Heights Board and Commission Vacancies
Charter Commission 4 (appointment by District Judge)
Library Board 1
Recreation Commission 1
Telecommunications Com. 1
Traffic Commission 1
Recommended Motion
: Move to appoint ____________________to the Library Board for the vacant
term to expire April 2012, _____________________ to the Recreation Commission for the vacant
term to expire April 2013, ______________________ to the Telecommunications Commission for the
vacant term to expire April 2011, and ________________________ to the Traffic Commission for the
vacant term to expire April 2011.
COUNCIL ACTION:
171