Loading...
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   ðÓÚÊÛÊà  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   ðÓÚÊÛÊà  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×ÊÈà ÓÎÉÛÓØùÓÈÃÍÖùÍÐÇÏÚÓÛô×ÓÕÔÈÉÖÍÊÈÔ×ÖÍÐÐÍÅÓÎÕÌÇÊÌÍÉ×É ÷ÉÈÓÏÛÈ×Øõ×Î×ÊÛÐöÇÎØð×Æà  ÷ÉÈÓÏÛÈ×ØðÓÚÊÛÊÃð×Æà   ÷ÉÈÓÏÛÈ×Ø÷øûöÇÎØð×Æà  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×Ðà 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×ÉÈÍÌÛà 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×Øúà é×ÙÍÎØ×Øúà 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