The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-06-2018 WS Mayor Donna Schmitt Councilmembers Robert A. Williams John Murzyn, Jr. Connie Buesgens Nick Novitsky City Manager Walter R. Fehst City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763) 706-3600 Visit our website at: www.columbiaheightsmn.gov Auxiliary aids or other accommodations for disabled persons are available upon request when the request is made at least 48 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 763-706-3611 or kbruno@columbiaheightsmn.gov, to make arrangements. NOTICE OF WORK SESSION Meeting of: Columbia Heights City Council Date of Meeting: Monday August 6 , 2018 Time of Meeting: 7:00 PM (Following the EDA Meeting) Location of Meeting: City Hall-Conference Room No. 1 Purpose of Meeting: Worksession 1. Public Safety Staffing Study 2. Snow Removal 3. Public Hearing Notification process 4. On-Street Parking discussion 5. Update on citywide street rehabilitation program 6. Plan for customers that do not comply with notice of a non-working water meter 7. Plan for liquor store #3 AGENDA SECTION WORKSESSION ITEM NO. WS1 MEETING DATE AUGUST 6, 2018 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER ITEM: Public Safety Staffing Study Proposal Review DEPARTMENT: Administration CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL: BY/DATE: Kelli Bourgeois / July 31, 2018 BY/DATE: CITY STRATEGY: #7: Strong Infastructure/Public Services Additional Strategy? #2: Economic Strength SHORT TERM GOAL (IF APPLICABLE): #2 Conduct an Evaluation of City Services and Staffing Levels Additional Goal? N/A BACKGROUND: As you are all aware, the City Council included $60,000 for a staffing study of the Police and Fire Departments in the 2018 budget. Although issuing a Request for Proposals for the study was not required, it was felt that doing so would benefit the City by opening the process up to all interested parties and establishing a competitive process in which to evaluate proposals. This process was successful as we received eight proposals in response to the RFP with costs ranging from $18,980 to $70,854. CPSM $67,050 ESCI $38,982 Matrix $59,000 McGrath $59,750 Novak Group $59,800 Mission Critical $54,400 Sedlmeyer Consulting $70,854 Springsted $18,980 Staff from the Fire Department, Police Department, and Human Resources met to review and rank all of the proposals and after many hours of review and discussion, as well as reviewing final reports that consultants have done for other Minnesota agencies, the group is recommending the City Council contract with McGrath Consulting to conduct the staffing study. Although they are not the lowest priced firm, they have the most relevant, local experience, best addressed the specific areas of our RFP within their proposal, are experienced in and able to accurately address the inspections area of Fire, and in reviewing a few reports they have done for other Minnesota agencies, we feel they are thorough and include the appropriate level of data collection and analysis in all aspects. Staff will give more thorough overviews of the proposals at Monday’s meeting but if you would like to review all of the proposals or if you would like copies of any or all of them, please let me know. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff will be asking the City Council to enter into a contract for services with McGrath Consulting at the August 13th City Council meeting. AGENDA SECTION WORK SESSION ITEM NO. WS2 MEETING DATE AUGUST 6, 2018 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER ITEM: Central Avenue Sidewalk Snow Removal DEPARTMENT: Administration CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL: BY/DATE: Kelli Bourgeois, July 26 2018 BY/DATE: CITY STRATEGY: #1; Safe Community Additional Strategy? #7: Strong Infastructure/Public Services SHORT TERM GOAL (IF APPLICABLE): N/A Additional Goal? N/A INTRODUCTION: Several months ago the City Council discussed the issue of sidewalk snow removal by commercial property owners on Central Avenue. There were complaints during the past winter that a number of businesses along Central Avenue consistently violated the City’s sidewalk snow removal ordinance by not clearing the sidewalks abutting their property clear for pedestrians. At that time, the idea of hiring a contractor to conduct active enforcement, including documenting violations and clearing the sidewalks, and billing or assessing the costs to the abutting property owner was discussed. BACKGROUND: City Code requires property owners to clear all snow and ice from all City public sidewalks 24 hours after the snow stops falling. If the snow is not removed by then the condition is considered a nuisance affecting public peace and safety and the City can begin the abatement process. This is the process we use at this time however with limited staff resources and the timeline required for a typical abatement, prompt enforcement and clearing of the sidewalk is difficult. There are a few options for the City Council to consider when discussing sidewalk snow removal, especially as it relates to the Central Avenue corridor. First, is to continue with the current process, as many property owners do comply with the current ordinances. Second, is to increase enforcement using the current ordinance language. There is a provision within the ordinance allowing the City Council to by resolution identify specific violations of the City Code as a public nuisance in which immediate abatement should occur. This provision would streamline the notification process in which property owners are notified and provided an opportunity to clear the sidewalk. With current staffing levels to conduct inspections and enforcement this option is difficult as it is currently conducted. Staff would propose working with the City Attorney to implement ordinance language or other City Council approvals necessary to hire a contractor to conduct both the enforcement and sidewalk clearing activities. An example of this would be: contractor sees a property out of compliance; takes a photo of the noncompliance sidewalk with the property location identifiable in the photo; takes a photo of the property address; clears the sidewalk to bring it into compliance; takes an after photo of the cleared sidewalk with identifying location information in the photo; bills the City for the work; the city pays the bill and invoices the City of Columbia Heights – Work Session Page 2 Central Avenue Sidewalk Snow Removal Discussion – August 6, 2018 property owner for the contractor’s bill and administrative costs; if the property owner doesn’t pay the invoice, the cost is assessed to the property. This option is not perfect but it could improve and speed up the process. Issues to consider include: still requires staff time to enforce, and manage the invoicing and assessing processes. Property owners may complain to staff and City Council about the process, the cost, and that the work wasn’t done to an acceptable level. A final option to consider is that of establishing a Special Service District. This would be a District that a minimum of 50% of affected property owners would petition to have established. Once established, the City would contract with a vendor to clear the sidewalks along the entire corridor after each qualifying snow or ice event and assess the costs of the work back to each of the benefitting commercial property owners. This could be a cost effective option for property owners because the contractor would have one large length of sidewalk to do instead of a single property here or there. This would provide for uniform snow removal for the entire corridor and ensure that the sidewalk is passable for all users. Issues that the City Council will want to consider with this option are the fact that some commercial businesses likely clear the snow themselves so this would be an added cost to them, single family residential properties along the route would receive the benefit of the clearing but by Statute they are not allowed to be charged for the service as part of the Service District, there could again be the complaint from property owners that the clearing isn’t done to their standards, and this option is only possible if at least 25% of the property owners (whose net tax capacity is also 25% or more of the total for the District) request it or if enough owners veto the action. CONCLUSION: How would the City Council like to proceed for this coming winter and the winters to follow? There is staff support within all of the Departments to see if the business owners along Central Avenue would be interested in a Special Services District but this may not be possible for this coming winter. Staff would recommend moving forward with necessary steps to more actively enforce the current ordinance requirements using a private contractor for both enforcement and the sidewalk clearing for this coming winter; while concurrently working with the business owners to see if there is adequate support to establish a Special Service District to conduct snow and ice clearing for next winter and beyond. AGENDA SECTION WORK SESSION ITEM NO. WS3 MEETING DATE AUGUST 6, 2018 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER ITEM: Public Hearing Notice Mailing Procedures DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL: BY/DATE: Joe Hogeboom, July 25, 2018 BY/DATE: CITY STRATEGY: #8: Engaged, Multi-Generational Population Additional Strategy? N/A SHORT TERM GOAL (IF APPLICABLE): N/A Additional Goal? N/A INTRODUCTION: Several months ago, the question was raised of whether or not public hearing notices are mailed to renters/tenants of properties in addition to property owners. Renters and tenants could be people living in a residential property, or it could be a business that rents space in a commercial or industrial property. Currently, in most cases the City only mails official public hearing notices to property owners. There are some instances, however, that renters are sent notice if an issue impacts the specific rental property in which they reside. This report will discuss some of the issues that pertain to public hearing notice mailings. BACKGROUND: There are several challenges that the City faces when considering sending mailings to renters/tenants within properties. One of the largest challenges that we face when considering sending mailed notices to renters and tenants is that the City currently retrieves mailing information from Anoka County’s Geographic Information System (GIS) database. Often times, the database will only have owner information, and the system will not provide data such as apartment and suite unit numbers. Therefore, for most rental property, our current system makes it impossible to identify individual rental units. Because some rental units may appear within the Anoka County GIS system, but most do not, the City Attorney has stated that a legal issue may present itself if notice is sent to some renters, but not all renters. Another factor to consider with public hearing mailing notices is cost. Currently, the cost of sending a public hearing notice is $0.47 per mailing. For most Planning Commission items, the City mails public hearing notices to property owners within 350 feet of a project area. Depending on where the project site is located there can typically be anywhere from 30 to 1,000 notices sent out. Based upon the amount of public hearing notices that are sent for a project, monthly mailing expenses can be $200 - $1,000. Because there are almost 3,000 renter- occupied units in Columbia Heights, and hundreds of business rental spaces, sending notice to renters and tenants would exponentially raise monthly mailing costs. Unfortunately, Planning Commission application fees often times already will not cover mailing expenses if a project is located within a dense area. CONCLUSION: Considering cost and technology limitations, it is currently difficult to mail public hearing notices to renters and tenants in addition to property owners. However, there are other methods that staff has, and will continue to, put into place to help make information available to everybody in Columbia Heights. First, we City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2 have added boldface language within our current public hearing notices telling property owners that it is their responsibility to convey public hearing information to their tenants. With the installation of the upcoming LED sign at the Library, it is staff’s intention to advertise certain public hearing and Planning Commission meetings there so that a broader group of people are receiving the information. Finally, staff is working closely with the Communications Coordinator to discuss innovative new ways of providing information to our residents, including enhanced use of the City’s website and social media platforms. Staff seeks further direction from the City Council regarding this matter, and welcomes and questions or feedback that the Council may have. AGENDA SECTION WORK SESSION ITEM NO. WS4 MEETING DATE AUGUST 6, 2018 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER ITEM: On-Street Parking Issues DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL: BY/DATE: Joe Hogeboom, July 19, 2018 BY/DATE: CITY STRATEGY: #1; Safe Community Additional Strategy? #7: Strong Infastructure/Public Services SHORT TERM GOAL (IF APPLICABLE): N/A Additional Goal? N/A BACKGROUND: Staff has received complaints about excessive on-street parking associated with the Heights Event Center, located in the former Library building on 40th Avenue. In April, upon Heights Event Center’s opening, staff had requested that the business’s owner help promote the free municipal parking facilities to his patrons. Staff also reached out to Immaculate Conception Catholic Church and the Greater Life Tabernacle to see if there was any interest in allowing shared or leased parking with the Heights Event Center. Unfortunately, neither institution is able to accommodate shared parking at this time. Following the excessive neighborhood parking complaints that were generated in early April, the Police Department regularly monitored the streets near the vicinity of the Heights Event Center. It wasn’t until July 13th that staff received complaints about excessive parking associated with the Heights Event Center on Jackson and Quincy Streets. Additional events at the Center were held the following weekend, and similar complaints were made at that time. Since on-street parking has become an issue, staff is looking into other options to help mitigate the situation. Public Works, Fire, Police and Community Development staff met to discuss various measures to help ensure orderly parking in the areas near the Heights Event Center. These options include the following: 1. Enhanced Directional and Promotional Signage for the Municipal Parking Ramp and Lot Staff met to discuss types of signs and locations of signs. We hope to have additional signage installed in the near future. It is staff’s intent to place parking directional signage along 40th Avenue, including directly outside of the Heights Event Center. Staff will also add new signage at the parking lot and at the parking ramps. 2. Large Event Parking Attendants Staff is currently researching the legalities surrounding requiring the Heights Event Center to notify the City when events are to be held that will attract over 100 patrons. At those times, we would like to require that the Heights Event Center supply a person to direct patrons to appropriate municipal parking facilities. Because the Heights Event Center is an allowable use in the Central Business District, and the facility does not require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), this option may be difficult to enforce. City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2 3. Parking Restrictions The Police Department reports that during events held at the Heights Event Center, excessive parking has made the 3900 and 4000 blocks of Jackson and Quincy Streets potentially impassable for large emergency vehicles. If continued efforts to drive Event Center parking to the municipal parking areas fail, the City could consider restricting parking to one side of Jackson and Quincy Streets within several blocks of the Heights Event Center. 4. Resident-Only Permit Parking Several residents have inquired about whether or not the City would consider restricting parking in the vicinity of the Heights Event Center to residents only. While this option initially sounds appealing, it has many challenges, including:  Deciding how many parking permits to issue per household. Would it be based on street frontage, number of driving adults in the home, etc.?  Deciding if and how to issue “visitor” parking permits should residents in this area wish to hold a party or other large events with guests.  Understanding the true costs associated with the administration and enforcement of resident- only parking, and determining what, if any, costs are associated with the program.  Addressing enforcement issues should a resident forget to place a permit in/on his or her vehicle. In addition, establishing a resident-only parking district in one part of the City could have unintended consequences with residents elsewhere in the City seeking to establish similar parking restrictions in their neighborhoods. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends installing directional signage for free public parking and continuing to work with the Heights Event Center business owner to help search for innovative ways (such as assigning a “parking attendant” from the business to help direct patrons) to help alleviate excessive parking on neighborhood streets. If excessive parking continues after pursuing these efforts, staff may recommend placing parking restrictions on one side of neighborhood streets in this vicinity. Staff seeks further direction from the City Council regarding this matter. AGENDA SECTION WORK SESSION ITEM NO. MEETING DATE AUGUST 2, 2018 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER ITEM: CITYWIDE STREET REHABILITATION PROGRAM, 10-YEAR FINANCIAL PROJECTION – 2018 UPDATE DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL: BY/DATE: Kevin Hansen /August 2, 2018 BY/DATE: CITY STRATEGY: #7: Strong Infastructure/Public Services Additional Strategy? N/A SHORT TERM GOAL (IF APPLICABLE): N/A Additional Goal? N/A BACKGROUND: In 1996 the City of Columbia Heights adopted Resolution No. 96-28 that initiated a Street Rehabilitation Program. This program was set up to preserve the large investment in and extend the life of the local street system. Under the Street Rehabilitation Program, the City is divided into seven zones (or areas) providing for a repeating 8-year program, with the additional year added for alleys or other projects. 2002, 2005, 2007 Program Updates: At the time that the original program was set up, a 20-year cash flow projection was prepared by Public Works. At that time, a detailed analysis of the condition of the City streets was not available. Therefore, assumptions were made based on the age of the street section and the likely treatment to extend that section life. Many streets were assumed to be in satisfactory condition, with the majority of recommended treatment consisting of a mill and overlay. As the program moved into the construction phase and detailed analysis became available each year, staff treatment recommendations resulted in more partial and full reconstruction than originally projected. Staff provided the City Council with updates of the 20-year cash flow in 2002, 2005 and 2007. Program details for cost determination made at that time included: •The City pays for the first seal coat after one of the three rehabilitation treatments. •Many zones have been split into quadrants, adding additional years to the overall program. •The assessment policy and associated City share (percentage) remains constant over the projection. •Costs and revenues are estimated with an annual 3% inflation factor. •Alley construction is assumed in each subsequent ‘off’ year @ $160,000 (unfactored). •Additional program revenue was constant at $270,000 annually, originating from the certification of the City’s Local State-Aid System, which has to be recertified every two years and is not guaranteed. In the 2002 and 2005 program updates, the financial projection reported that the Street Rehabilitation Fund would be drawn into the red, or incur a negative operating balance for eight consecutive years, but end the 3rd eight-year program cycle in 2020 with a fund balance of $450,000 – $550,000. The 2007 update indicated that the program would incur negative operating losses for 12 of the last 13 years. There are two main reasons for this: 1.Accurate analyses of the existing street conditions have resulted in more partial and full reconstruction than originally projected. WS5 City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2 2. Construction costs experienced significant increases during the program. 3. Alleys were never included in the original projections. As originally set up, the program is thought to be continuous and ongoing, but that costs should decrease as the condition of the street is brought up and maintained at or above a reasonable level. At the end of three 8- year cycles, the program should have a sufficient balance to continue and sustain recommended treatments. The earlier updates provided that the program would incur negative operating balances over the remaining two full program cycles without additional revenue or changes to the current assessment policy. To financially sustain this extremely important program, the City elected to provide $1,000,000 bond revenue to the program in 2007. 2018 Program Update: Attached are two financial projection sheets as follows: • Exhibit A – considers only expenses and revenue for the Street Rehabilitation Program areas. • Exhibit B – considers expenses and revenue sources (including Federal grants) for major projects and rehabilitation to state aid routes. A detailed update consisting of a 10-year projection has been prepared and attached as Exhibit “A” and “B.” Exhibit “A” consists only of Street Zone projects out through the year 2028, and Exhibit “B” consists of major City projects and State-Aid routes projected out to the same timeline. A few important assumptions should be noted of Exhibit “A”. • The City pays for the first seal coat after one of the three rehabilitation treatments. • Zones have been combined for program efficiency (Zones 4 and 5 in 2020). • The assessment policy and associated City share (percentage) remains constant over the projection. • The City contributes $100,000 annually out of two revenue sources. • Additional program revenue is variable annually, depending on program size. It continues to be funded from the certification of the City’s Local State-Aid System, which has to be recertified every two years and is not guaranteed. • Alley construction included in each subsequent ‘off’ year @ $180,000 (unfactored). • Appendix A includes the reconstruction of alleys every fourth year of the program, totaling eight (8) alleys. • Seal coating is one Street Zone behind, but seal coating does not take place in years 2019 and 2028. In this projection, the financial health of the Street Rehabilitation Fund is good, maintaining a sustainable fund balance at the end of the 10-year cycle. A few important assumptions should be noted of Exhibit “B”: • Columbia Heights became a certified State Aid City in 1999/2000. This allows our population apportionment of our annual State Aid allotment to be used on local streets. • The State-Aid Assessment Policy and associated City share (percentage) remains constant over the projection. • Two major projects are Federal Grant dependent: 37th Avenue (Central Avenue to Stinson Boulevard) in 2022 and Central Avenue Safety Improvements (43rd Avenue to 47th Avenue) in 2023. • 40th Avenue (University Avenue to Central Avenue) will follow Anoka County cost share program. City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 3 • 53rd Avenue from Central Avenue to Sullivan Lake Park is grant dependent, and is also a cost share with the City of Fridley. • With 2018 approved projects, available funds at year end are projected at –(512,445). With supporting the Street Rehabilitation Program, the State Aid fund is not projected to come back into a positive balance until the last year of the 10-year projection. This also projects no State Aid or major projects will occur in the last four years of the 10-year projection. It is critical to recognize that infrastructure represents a huge public investment and in the long term, it is more cost-effective to make the investment to maintain streets at a satisfactory or good condition level as opposed to letting the streets go and bear that extraordinary cost in the future. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): None – information/update only. ATTACHMENT(S): Exhibit “A” – 2018 10-year cash flow update, Street Rehabilitation Program Exhibit “B” – 2018 10-year cash flow update, Major and State Aid projects State Aid project list EX H I B I T A To t a l To t a l To t a l LS , G F , B Other orFund 430 Ye a r Zo n e To t a l C o s t As s e s s m e n t Ci t y S h a r e To t a l C o s t As s e s s m e n t Ci t y S h a r e Co n s t r u c t i o n As s e s s m e n t Ci t y S h a r e Co n t r i b * City ContribCash Flow $1,354,452July 2018 actual 20 1 9 M S A $ 1 , 6 8 0 , 0 0 0 $ 5 3 7 , 5 0 0 $ 5 8 0 , 0 0 0 M S A $0 $0 $0 $ 1 , 6 8 0 , 0 0 0 $ 5 3 7 , 5 0 0 $ 5 8 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 G F $ 4 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 2 8 4 , 4 5 2 O t h e r i s $ 1 9 0 , 0 0 0 M n D O T S i g n a l & $ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 M i n n e a p o l i s (no Z o n e P r o g r a m 2 0 1 9 ) 20 1 9 Al l e y s ( 2 ) $3 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 5 8 , 0 0 0 $ 2 0 2 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $ 3 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 5 8 , 0 0 0 $ 2 0 2 , 0 0 0 $0 $0$1,109,513No Sealcoat, Alleys not MSA Off-system elligible. 20 2 0 4 $ 2 , 0 1 2 , 5 6 3 $ 1 , 4 1 0 , 6 2 9 $ 6 0 1 , 9 3 4 $3 7 1 , 8 5 5 $ 3 4 0 , 8 3 3 $ 3 1 , 0 2 2 $ 2 , 3 8 4 , 4 1 8 $ 1 , 7 5 1 , 4 6 2 $ 6 3 2 , 9 5 6 $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3 8 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 1 6 4 , 9 0 8 S e a l c o a t i s Z o n e 3 , O t h e r i s M S A o f f - s y s t e m 20 2 0 5 $ 1 7 8 , 8 6 0 $ 1 4 7 , 3 5 7 $ 3 1 , 5 0 3 $1 7 8 , 8 6 0 $ 1 4 7 , 3 5 7 $ 3 1 , 5 0 3 $0 $75,000$1,238,616No Sealcoat, Other is MSA off-system 20 2 1 6 $ 1 , 7 6 2 , 1 3 7 $ 1 , 1 8 0 , 0 6 4 $ 5 8 2 , 0 7 3 $2 0 5 , 9 6 5 $ 1 7 4 , 2 9 0 $ 3 1 , 6 7 5 $ 1 , 9 6 8 , 1 0 2 $ 1 , 3 5 4 , 3 5 4 $ 6 1 3 , 7 4 8 $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3 7 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 1 2 7 , 3 6 4 S e a l c o a t Z o n e 4 , O t h e r i s M S A o f f - s y s t e m 20 2 2 7 $ 8 8 2 , 0 0 5 $ 6 9 5 , 2 8 2 $ 1 8 6 , 7 2 3 $4 0 9 , 1 0 8 $ 3 0 4 , 6 4 6 $ 1 0 4 , 4 6 2 $ 1 , 2 9 1 , 1 1 3 $ 9 9 9 , 9 2 8 $ 2 9 1 , 1 8 5 $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3 2 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 2 9 2 , 7 0 9 S e a l c o a t Z o n e 5 , O t h e r i s M S A o f f - s y s t e m 20 2 3 Al l e y s ( 3 ) $5 5 5 , 0 0 0 $ 2 4 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3 1 5 , 0 0 0 $4 6 8 , 6 1 0 $ 2 7 1 , 4 9 5 $ 1 9 7 , 1 1 5 $ 1 , 0 2 3 ,6 1 0 $ 5 1 1 , 4 9 5 $ 5 1 2 , 1 1 5 $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $0$902,609Sealcoat Zone 6, Other is MSA off-system (no Z o n e P r o g r a m 2 0 2 3 ) 20 2 4 1 $ 3 , 5 7 4 , 4 4 9 $ 2 , 7 9 0 , 5 8 9 $ 7 8 3 , 8 6 0 $5 4 6 , 1 8 5 $ 5 0 6 , 3 2 2 $ 3 9 , 8 6 3 $ 4 , 1 2 0 , 6 3 4 $ 3 , 2 9 6 , 9 1 1 $ 8 2 3 , 7 2 3 $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 4 7 5 , 0 0 0 $ 6 7 0 , 2 3 3 S e a l c o a t Z o n e 7 , O t h e r i s M S A o f f - s y s t e m 20 2 5 2 $ 2 , 7 3 1 , 6 6 1 $ 2 , 1 9 9 , 9 1 8 $ 5 3 1 , 7 4 3 $1 2 4 , 7 1 2 $ 8 2 , 2 3 1 $ 4 2 , 4 8 1 $ 2 , 8 5 6 , 3 7 3 $ 2 , 2 8 2 , 1 4 9 $ 5 7 4 , 2 2 4 $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 4 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 6 2 , 1 5 9 S e a l c o a t Z o n e 1 , O t h e r i s M S A O f f - s y s t e m 20 2 6 3 $ 6 9 2 , 8 8 1 $ 5 8 8 , 9 4 8 $ 1 0 3 , 9 3 3 $2 3 4 , 8 0 4 $ 1 6 4 , 1 0 0 $ 7 0 , 7 0 4 $ 9 2 7 , 6 8 5 $ 7 5 3 , 0 4 8 $ 1 7 4 , 6 3 7 $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3 2 5 , 0 0 0 $ 9 3 5 , 3 3 5 S e a l c o a t Z o n e 2 , O t h e r i s M S A o f f - s y s t e m 20 2 7 Al l e y s ( 3 ) $5 9 6 , 0 0 0 $ 2 6 5 , 0 0 0 $ 3 3 1 , 0 0 0 $4 2 7 , 6 8 8 $ 4 2 7 , 6 8 8 $0 $ 1 , 0 2 3 , 6 8 8 $ 6 92 , 6 8 8 $ 3 3 1 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $0$721,943Sealcoat Zone 3, Other is MSA off-system (no Z o n e P r o g r a m 2 0 2 7 ) 20 2 8 4 $ 2 4 7 , 8 1 3 $ 1 9 7 , 0 2 3 $ 5 0 , 7 9 0 $0 $0 $0 $ 2 4 7 , 8 1 3 $ 1 9 7 , 0 2 3 $ 5 0 , 7 9 0 $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 1 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 1 0 , 8 0 7 N o S e a l c o a t , O t h e r i s M S A o f f - s y s t e m * $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 t r a n s f e r f r o m L i q u o r , a n d $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 r e v e n u e f r o m L G A . St R e h a b ( R e c o n , P a r t i a l R e c o n , O v e r l a y ) Se a l c o a t Ab o v e for 37th & $70,000 MSA-212 for trail Ye a r 2 0 4 0 S t r e e t R e h a b i l i t a t i o n P l a n - 2 0 1 8 U p d a t e EX H I B I T B To t a l To t a l To t a l Ot h e r St r e e t Co n s t r u c t i o n State Aid Ye a r To t a l C o s t As s e s s m e n t Ci t y S h a r e MS A Co n s t r u c t i o n As s e s s m e n t Ci t y S h a r e Co n t r i b * Re h a b P r o g Al l o t m e n t Cash Flow ($219,355)July 2018 actual 20 1 8 $ 7 1 1 , 8 3 6 $ 1 6 7 , 7 0 0 $ 1 6 4 , 2 3 2 $ 2 9 3 , 0 9 0 $ 7 1 1 , 8 3 6 $ 1 6 7 , 7 0 0 $ 4 5 7 , 3 2 2 $ 8 6 , 8 1 4 $ 0 ($512,445) 20 1 9 $ 1 , 5 8 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 3 7 , 5 0 0 $ 5 7 , 5 0 0 $ 5 8 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 5 8 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 3 7 , 5 0 0 $ 6 3 7 , 5 0 0 $ 4 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 0 $ 5 9 4 , 9 3 4 ($497,511)Other is $190,000 MnDOT Signal & $150,000 Minneapolis 202 0 $ 1 , 9 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 4 4 , 0 0 0 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 8 3 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 9 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 4 4 , 0 0 0 $ 3 3 3 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 3 3 3 , 0 0 0 $ 4 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 5 9 9 , 2 5 0 ($641,261)Other is 90/10 HSIP Grant *& 50/50 cost share 20 2 1 $ 2 , 8 1 1 , 8 3 3 $ 5 1 5 , 0 0 0 $ 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 4 7 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 8 1 1 , 8 3 3 $ 5 1 5 , 0 0 0 $ 8 4 7 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 4 4 9 , 8 3 3 $ 3 7 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 9 9 , 2 5 0 ($664,011)Other is cost share w/ Anoka Co., City share is 20 2 2 $ 1 0 , 7 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 , 7 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 9 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 8 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3 2 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 9 9 , 2 5 0 ($989,761)Reg Solic Grant, 50/50 Cost Share w/ Minneapolis 20 2 3 $ 2 , 2 7 5 , 0 0 0 $ 4 4 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3 7 5 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 2 7 5 , 0 0 0 $ 4 4 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 2 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 3 0 5 , 0 0 0 $ 0 $ 5 9 9 , 2 5 0 ($765,511)Other is HSIP Grant for Central Avenue Safety 20 2 4 $ 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ 4 7 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 9 9 , 2 5 0 ($641,261)No State-aid work 20 2 5 $ 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ 4 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 5 9 9 , 2 5 0 ($492,011)No State-aid work 20 2 6 $ 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ 3 2 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 9 9 , 2 5 0 ($217,761)No State-aid work 20 2 7 $ 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ 0 $ 5 9 9 , 2 5 0 $ 3 8 1 , 4 8 9 N o S t a t e - a i d w o r k 20 2 8 $ 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ 2 1 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 9 9 , 2 5 0 $ 7 6 5 , 7 3 9 N o S t a t e - a i d w o r k MS A R e h a b ( R e c o n , P a r t i a l R e c o n , O v e r l a y ) for 37th & $70,000 MSA for trail utilities on 40th Ye a r 2 0 4 0 S t r e e t R e h a b i l i t a t i o n P l a n - 2 0 1 8 U p d a t e STREETS/MUNICIPAL STATE AID: 2018 ITEM ROUTE IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED FUNDING NO.NO.DESCRIPTION YEAR COST *SOURCES REMARKS 1 MSAS 110 39th Avenue 2018 $875,000 402 MSA, Local Huset Pkwy to Central Ave Assess Street Reconstruction 2 Bituminous Overlay 2018 $620,650 402 MSA, Local MSAS 101 37th Avenue Assess Main St to 5th St Cost Share 1/2 cost w/ City of Minneapolis MSAS 102 Main Street 2018 $267,850 402 MSA, Local 37th Ave to 40th Ave Assess 3 TH 65 Repaint Traffic Signals 2019 $120,000 212 MSA Maintenance Replace Backlit Street Signs TOTAL 2018:$1,883,500 STREETS/MUNICIPAL STATE AID: 2019 ITEM ROUTE IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED FUNDING NO.NO.DESCRIPTION YEAR MSA COST *SOURCES REMARKS 4 Bituminous Overlay 402 MSA, Local MSAS 101 37th Avenue 2019 $300,000 Assess 5th St to Central Ave Cost Share 1/2 cost w/ City of Minneapolis MSAS 104 44th Avenue 2019 $750,000 402 MSA, Local University to Jefferson Assess 5 MSAS 112 40th from McKinley to Hayes 2019 $95,000 212 MSA Maint, Local defects Pavement rutting 6 TH 65 Traffic Signal Replacement, 41st & TH 65 2019 $390,000 Cost Share 1/2 Share with MnDOT (estimate provided by MnDOT)402 MSA 7 TH 47 Bituminous Trail 2019 $145,000 402, 212 MSA Off-System TH 47, 38th Ave to 40th Ave Other MSA Maint TOTAL 2019:$1,680,000 STREETS/MUNICIPAL STATE AID: 2020 ITEM ROUTE IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED FUNDING NO.NO.DESCRIPTION YEAR MSA COST *SOURCES REMARKS 10 Retaining Walls 2020 MSA Maint MSAS 101 37th Avenue, E of Polk St $115,000 212 MSAS 112 40th Avenue, W of Hayes St $85,000 212 11 Bituminous Overlay 2020 MSA, Local MSAS 118 53rd Avenue Raised Median & Roundabout $1,400,000 402 HSIP Grant Joint w/Fridley University Ave to Central Ave Cost Share Possible trail south side MSAS 117 47th Avenue $225,000 402 Central Ave to Tyler St Assess MSAS 106 Hart Blvd $285,000 402 Possible Trail west side 37th Ave to 39th Ave Assess TOTAL 2020:$2,110,000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2018-2023 SUMMARY LISTING BY DEPARTMENT AND YEAR OF REQUEST g\pw\pw cip\msas cip.xls Page 1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2018-2023 SUMMARY LISTING BY DEPARTMENT AND YEAR OF REQUEST STREETS/MUNICIPAL STATE AID: 2021 ITEM ROUTE IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED FUNDING NO.NO.DESCRIPTION YEAR MSA COST *SOURCES REMARKS 9 MSAS 116 Trail: Reservoir Blvd and Fillmore 2020 $51,800 402 MSA Street, 44th Ave to 49th Ave MWW site alignment 12 MSAS Crack Seal and Seal Coat 2021 $105,500 212 MSA VARIOUS 13 CSAH 2 40th Avenue 2021 $2,760,033 402 University Ave to Central Ave including:TBD Assess Full Reconstruct $2,160,000 Cost Share Anoka Co Cost Share & MSA Storm Sewer $385,000 MWMO, MSA , Local Streetscape $215,000 MSA Off-System, Local TOTAL 2021:$2,917,333 STREETS/MUNICIPAL STATE AID: 2022 ITEM ROUTE IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED FUNDING NO.NO.DESCRIPTION YEAR MSA COST *SOURCES REMARKS 14 MSAS 101 37th Avenue 2022 $10,000,000 402 Fed Grant, MSA, Utility Funds Central Ave to Stinson Blvd Cost Share 1/2 cost w/ City of Minneapolis Street Reconstruction, utilities, trail, lighting Assess 15 MSAS 114 37th Place 2022 $235,000 402 MSA - Cul-de-Sac street 37th Ave to Stinson Blvd existing concrete Street Removal/Recon Bituminous Overlay 16 MSAS 116 Reservoir Boulevard 2022 $475,000 402 MSA Local 44th Avenue to 46th Avenue Assess Fillmore Street 44th Ave to 49th Ave TOTAL 2022:$10,710,000 STREETS/MUNICIPAL STATE AID: 2023 ITEM ROUTE IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED FUNDING NO.NO.DESCRIPTION YEAR MSA COST *SOURCES REMARKS 17 TH 65 Central Ave: 43rd to 47th 2023 $1,450,000 402 Fed HSIP Grant, MSA Sidewalk reconstruction, ROW, new lighting Cost Share Hilltop 18 MSAS 104 44th Avenue 2023 $825,000 402 MSA, Local Jefferson to Central Assess Street Removal/Recon 19 MSAS 116 Trail: Reservoir Blvd and Fillmore 2020 $51,800 212 MSA Street, 44th Ave to 49th Ave MWW site alignment TOTAL 2022:$2,326,800 MSAS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TOTAL:$21,627,633 * Estimated Project Costs consists of construction costs plus 20% of the construction cost for engineering OTHER: 10 Year Bituminous Overlay: Street Zone Program MSA Streets 44th Avenue Main St to University Ave g\pw\pw cip\msas cip.xls Page 2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2018-2023 SUMMARY LISTING BY DEPARTMENT AND YEAR OF REQUEST 44th Avenue Van Buren to Reservoir 3rd Street 37th Ave to 38th Ave Jefferson Street 44th Ave to 51st Ave Washington 51st St to 53rd St 51st Avenue Washington St to Central Ave 47th Avenue Tyler St to Fillmore St Johnson Street 37th Ave to 40th Ave West Upland Crest & Pennine Pass 49th Ave to Innsbruck Pkwy g\pw\pw cip\msas cip.xls Page 3