HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-2016Mayor
Gary L. Peterson
Councilmembers
Robert A. Williams
Bruce Nawrocki
Donna Schmitt
John Murzyn, Jr.
City Manager
Walter R. Fehst
City of Columbia Heights
590 40th Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763) 706-3600 TDD (763) 706-3692
Visit our website at: www.columbiaheightsmn.gov
The following is the agenda for the regular meeting of the City Council to be held at 7:00 PM on Monday,
October 24, 2016 in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, Minnesota.
The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or
treatment or employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided
to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, programs, and activities.
Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request when the r equest 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
2.ROLL CALL
3.INVOCATION- Invocation provided by Dan Thompson, Heights Church
4.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
5.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.)
6.PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, RECOGNITION, ANNOUNCEMENTS, GUESTS
A. Presentation from Barb Goodwin, AAC
7.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 City Council
MOTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of October 10, 2016
B. Resolution 2016-103: Appropriate a project budget in Redevelopment Fund 420 for the costs to hold 820
40th Avenue NE until sold.
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2016-103, there being ample copies available to the
public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2016-103, being a resolution to appropriate a project budget in
Redevelopment Fund 420 for the costs to hold 820 40th Avenue NE until sold.
C. Adopt Resolution 2016-101 accepting the Feasibility Report for Zone 1 Street Seal Coat Project and
ordering the Public Improvement Hearing, City Project No. 1601
1
p 5
p 6
p 10
p 12
City of Columbia Heights October 24, 2016
City Council Agenda Page 2
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2016-101, there being ample copies available to the
public.
MOTION Move to adopt Resolution 2016-101, being a resolution accepting the Feasibility Report for Zone 1
Street Seal Coat, City Project No. 1601, and ordering the Public Improvement Hearing beginning at 7:00 p.m.
on December 5, 2016.
D. Final Payment For Zone 7b Seal Coat and City Parking Lot Seal Coat or Fog Seal
MOTION: Move to accept the work for 2016 Seal Coat and Fog Seal, City Project No. 1501 (Zone 7B) and
Project No. 1401 (Parking Lot Preservation), and authorize final payment of $5,310.00 to Pearson Bros, Inc. of
Hanover, Minnesota.
E. Award of Professional Engineering Services for Central Avenue Safety Improvements, Project 1608
MOTION: Move to award the Central Avenue Safety Improvements, Project 1608, to the consulting
engineering firm of SEH Inc. based upon their qualified, responsible proposal for a cost not -to-exceed
$216,500 appropriated from Fund 402-51608-3050.
F. Approve Resolution 2016-102 authorizing execution of an I&I Grant Agreement
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2016-102, there being ample copies available to the
public.
MOTION: Move to approve Resolution 2016-102 authorizing the City of Columbia Heights to execute an
agreement with MCES for reimbursement of I/I reduction costs in the amount of $25,000, and furthermore,
to authorize the City Engineer to act as the designated representative.
G. Approval of a Grant Application to DEED for Development of the Legends of Columbia Heights
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2016-96, there being ample copies available to the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2016-96, a resolution authorizing the approval of a grant application to
the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Contamination Clean-up and
Investigation Grant Program for the development of the Legends of Columbia Heights.
H. Approval of a Grant Application to Met Council
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2016-98, there being ample copies available to the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2016-98, a resolution authorizing the approval of a grant application to
the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Tax Base Revitalization Account.
I. Adopt Resolution 2016-95, Adopting Optional Appendices of the State Fire Code
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2016-95, there being ample copies available to the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2016-95, adopting optional appendices of the Minnesota State Fire Code.
J. Approve Transfer of PSB Range Rental Fees
MOTION: Move to transfer $8,600 received in Public Safety Building Range rental fees and $393 received
from recycling of brass shell casings (for a total of $8,993) as follows:
$7,045 to the Police Department’s Building Repair and Maintenance Services line item 101.42100.4020
to be used for range maintenance provided by DC Management and Environmental Services, and
$1,948 to the Police Department’s Supplies line item 101.42100.2171 to be used towards the purchase of
hepa filters to be used in the range.
2
p 20
p 22
p 34
p 38
p 58
p 79
p 81
City of Columbia Heights October 24, 2016
City Council Agenda Page 3
K. Professional services agreement for the design and construction administration of the Circle Terrace park
multi-purpose building
MOTION: Move to enter into an agreement for the design and construction administration of the Circle
Terrace Park multi-purpose building with the consulting engineering firm of ISG based upon their qualified,
responsible proposal for a cost not-to-exceed $25,500 appropriated from Fund 412-51609-3050.
L. Approve Transfer of Funds
MOTION: The $12,180.75 received for various traffic direction and security details at CH schools, and the $6,000
received from Anoka County as partial reimbursement for OT for our officer assigned to the Anoka Hennepin Drug
Task Force, and the $810 received from Anoka County as reimbursement for detox transports, and the $10,188.04
received from Coon Rapids for our participation in the Toward Zero Death traffic enforcement, and the $2,845
received for Anoka County Auto Theft grant reimbursement be transferred to line 1020, Overtime. The total is
$32,023.79.
M. Consideration of approval of attached list of rental housing applications .
MOTION: Move to approve the items listed for rental housing license applications for October 24, 2016, in
that they have met the requirements of the Property Maintenance Code.
N. Approve Business License Applications
MOTION: Move to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for October 24, 2016.
O. Payment of Bills
MOTION: Move that in accordance with Minnesota Statute 412.271, subd. 8, the City Council has received
the list of claims paid covering check number 163180 through 163359 in the amount of $ 963,877.42.
MOTION: Move to approve the Consent Agenda items.
8.PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Consideration of Declaration of a nuisance and abatement of violations within the City of Columbia
Heights is requested regarding the property at 4309 Main Street NE for failure to meet the
requirements of the Residential Maintenance Code.
MOTION: Move to close the public hearing and to waive the reading of Resolution Number 2016-91,
there being ample copies available to the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution Number 2016-91, being 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 section 8.206.
B. Establishment of the Central Valu Center TIF District
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2016-97, there being ample copies available to the
public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2016-97, a resolution authorizing a modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project; and Establishing the
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District Therein and Adoption of a Tax Increment Financing
Plan Therefor.
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2016-100, there being ample copies available to the
public.
3
p 82
p 84
p 85
p 91
p 93
p 101
p 104
City of Columbia Heights October 24, 2016
City Council Agenda Page 4
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2016-100, a resolution authorizing internal loan for advance of
public redevelopment costs in connection with Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing Distr ict.
9.ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
A. Other Ordinances and Resolutions
a.Part Time Temporary Library Employee Wage Adjustment
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2016-104, there being ample copies available to the
public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2016-104, being a resolution setting part time temporary library
employee wages effective November 1, 2016.
B. Bid Considerations
C. New Business and Reports
A. Title: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Authorization
MOTION: Waive the reading of Resolution No. 2016-99, there being ample copies available to the public.
MOTION: Move to approve Resolution No. 2016-99, being Resolution authorizing commencing the 2018
Comprehensive Plan revision process, and appropriated a project budget of no more than $100,000 from the
Special Projects Fund 226 to be devoted to the project.
10.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
11.CITIZENS FORUM
12.ADJOURNMENT
________________________________
Walt Fehst, City Manager
4
p 201
p 204
AGENDA SECTION PROCLAMATIONS
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE OCTOBER 24, 2016
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER
ITEM: All-America City Award Recognition
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL:
BY/DATE: Joe Hogeboom/ 10-04-16 BY/DATE:
BACKGROUND:
State Senator Barb Goodwin will present a Resolution of the State Senate to the City Council that recognizes
the City of Columbia Heights’ achievement of obtaining an All-America City Award. In addition, Congressman
Keith Ellison has recognized the City for the All-America City Award, and has provided the City with a
Congressional Record that attests to the recognition. City Manager Walt Fehst will present the Congressional
Record to the City Council.
5
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 2016
The following are the minutes for the regular meeting of the City Council held at 7:00 PM on Monday October
10, 2016 in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, Minnesota
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Peterson, Councilmembers Nawrocki, Williams, Schmitt and Murzyn, Jr.
Also Present: Walt Fehst; City Manager, Jim Hoeft; City Attorney, Keith Dahl; Economic Development Manager
and Katie Bruno; City Clerk/Council Secretary
3. INVOCATION
Invocation provided by Bob Lyndes, Crest View Senior Community
4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
5. 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.)
6. PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, RECOGNITION, ANNOUNCEMENTS, GUESTS
Mayor Peterson announced the second annual Heights Art Fest will take place on October 26th from 6:00-9:00
PM at Murzyn Hall.
A. Polish American Month proclamation
Mayor Peterson read the proclamation in its entirety, and presented it to Gloria Bergstrom. John Bieniek, a
member of Sister Cities presented the City with two police caps received from the Lomianke Police
Department. The caps are to be given to the Columbia Heights Police Department and the Anoka County
Sherriff’s office.
7. 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 City Council
MOTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of September 26, 2016
MOTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Assessment Hearing of October 3, 2016
B. Accept Board and Commission Meeting Minutes
MOTION: Move to accept the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 6, 2016
MOTION: Move to accept the minutes of the EDA Commission meeting of September 6, 2016
6
City Council Minutes
October 10, 2016
Page 2 of 4
MOTION: Move to accept the min utes of the Traffic Commission meeting of August 1, 2016
MOTION: Move to accept the minutes of the Library Board meeting of September 7, 2016
C. Approve Business License Applications
MOTION: Move to approve the items as listed on the business license ag enda for October 10, 2016.
D. Payment of Bills. *Removed for discussion
Councilmember Schmitt requested item D be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion:
Motion by Councilmember Nawrocki, seconded by Councilmember Murzyn, Jr. to approve the consent agenda
items A, B, and C . All Ayes, Motion Carried.
Councilmember Schmitt requested the following item be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion:
D. Payment of Bills
Councilmember Schmitt questioned a payment of $15,159.78 to the Westin Hotel in Denver, CO related to the
All America City trip, noting the item was not presented to the council for prior approval as required for
payments exceeding $15,000.00. Mayor Peterson explained the payment was reimbursed by the Columbia
Heights Activity Fund. Councilmember Schmitt requested the City Attorney explain the policy. City Attorney
James Hoeft stated he would look into the issue to determine if a violation to the City Charter occurred. Hoeft
stated the council can ratify the action of the City Manager authorizing the check in excess of 15,000.
Motion by Councilmember Williams, seconded by Councilmember Murzyn, Jr. to ratify the expenditure of
$15,159. 78 and approve the payment.
Councilmember Schmitt suggested the City Manager could have called an emergency meeting to approve the
expenditure.
City Manager Fehst explained the hotel invoice was paid by the City because of our tax exempt status, with the
intent to be reimbursed from the Activity Fund; noting this saved the community approximately $2,500.00.
Manager Fehst clarified there were a number of reductions to that initial amount of $15,159.78, the actual cost
was $14,234.00.
Councilmember Schmitt noted there were additional costs including shirts, flags, window clings and banners.
Manager Fehst clarified these expenses occurred after the award was received and will likely continue in order
to promote the good things happening in the City. Manager Fehst commented on the recent Columbia Heights
High School newspaper, with a front page story showcasing the All America City Award.
Councilmember Schmitt indicated that her objection is the council did not have the opportunity to vote on the
item, as it was never brought to a meeting for consideration.
Mayor Peterson indicated that this was brought up at many meeting and worksessions, and it seemed that the
council as well as the community was supportive.
Councilmember Nawrocki indicated that the All America City award has benefited the community, and called
the question, seconded by Councilmember Williams. All Ayes, Motion Carried .
7
City Council Minutes
October 10, 2016
Page 3 of 4
Motion by Councilmember Williams, seconded by Councilmember Murzyn, Jr. to ratify the expenditure of
$15,159. 78 and approve the payment. 4 Ayes, 1 Nay, Motion Carried. Ayes; Peterson, Williams, Nawrocki,
Murzyn, Jr. Nay; Schmitt.
Motion by Councilmember Murzyn, Jr. seconded by Councilmember Williams to move that in accordance with
Minnesota Statute 412.271, subd. 8, the City Council has received the list of claims paid covering check number
162044 through 163179 in the amount of $ 1,073,510.83. All Ayes, Motion Carried.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
A. Other Ordinances and Resolutions
a. Accepting Bids and Awarding a Contract for the Abatement and Demolition of the Property Located at 666
40th Avenue
Motion by Councilmember Williams, seconded by Councilmember Murzyn, Jr. to waive the reading of Resolution
2016-89, there being ample copies available to the public. All Ayes, Motion Carried.
Economic Development Director Keith Dahl reported the property was donated to the City, a pre-demolition
survey indicated contamination. Staff received two quotes from abatement contractors, and recommends
awarding the contract to Veit & Co. Inc.
Councilmember Nawrocki asked what will be done with the property once the structure is removed. Dahl
indicated it will be an entrance to Huset Park.
Steve Iserman - 662 40th Ave NE had questions regarding the retaining wall and chain link fence. City Attorney
Hoeft suggested Mr. Iserman talk with Kevin Hansen for clarification.
Motion by Councilmember Williams, seconded by Councilmember Murzyn, Jr. to approve Resolution 2016-89,
being a resolution authorizing execution of a Work Agreement for the abatement and demolition of the
commercial structure by and between Veit & Company, Inc. All Ayes, Motion Carried.
A. Bid Considerations
B. New Business and Reports
10. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
City Manager Walt Fehst reported there will be a Groundbreaking ceremony at the Legends of Columbia
Heights on Friday October 14th at 3:30 PM.
Councilmember Nawrocki questioned a letter received offering coverage for sewer line cleaning. Manager
Fehst reported he would confirm coverage with Pubic Works Director Kevin Hansen.
11. CITIZENS FORUM
Malcom Watson-1717 49th Ave NE shared some historical information from 1965.
Frost Simula-1700 49th Ave NE requested the Council consider climate change as they work on the upcoming
Comprehensive Plan.
8
City Council Minutes
October 10, 2016
Page 4 of 4
William Morrell - 4212 Reservoir Blvd. indicated that the area of 39th Ave NE, west of Central Ave is overcrowded
with vehicles. Mr. Morrell suggested the City reduce the frequency in sending the water/sewer line insurance
offerings.
Mr. Morrell noted the yard waste containers could be purchased for little more than the annual rental fee charged
by the City, and suggested the City consider selling the containers.
Mayor Peterson encouraged remembrance of our servicemen and women, police and firefighters.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m.
______________________
Respectively Submitted,
Katie Bruno, Council Secretary/City Clerk
Resolution No. 2016-89
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A WORK AGREEMENT FOR THE ABATEMENT AND DEMOLITION OF
THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE BY AND BETWEEN VEIT & COMPANY, INC.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council (Council) for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota (City) as follows:
WHEREAS, On June 8, 2016 the City was donated the real property located at 666 40th Avenue Northeast, in the
City of Columbia Heights, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota (Subject Property), which is legally described as
follows:
Lots 45 and 46, Block 65, Columbia Heights Annex to Minneapolis, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota,
according to the recorded plat thereof; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to demolish the structure located on the Subject Property, which was classified to be
hazardous and substandard pursuant to Minnesota Statues Sections 463.15 to 463.26; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the removal of the structure on the Subject Property as described in this
resolution is in the best interest of the City and its residents; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota State Statue Section 471.345 Uniform Municipal Contracting Law, the City solicited
sealed bids to numerous contractors for quotes related to the abatement and demolition of the structure on the
Subject Property as detailed in the Scope of Work and Specifications (Services); and
WHEREAS, Veit & Company, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid for the specific Services requested by the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the Work Agreement is awarded to Veit & Company,
Inc. in the amount not to exceed $36,500.00 and that the Mayor and City Manager are herewith authorized to
execute said Work Agreement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED this resolution shall be effective immediately upon its enactment by the City Council.
9
AGENDA SECTION CONSENT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE OCTOBER 24, 2016
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER
ITEM: CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2016-103, APPROPRIATE A PROJECT BUDGET
IN REDEVELOPMENT FUND 420 FOR THE COSTS TO HOLD 820 40TH AVENUE NE UNTIL SOLD.
DEPARTMENT: Finance CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL:
BY/DATE: Joseph Kloiber / October 20, 2016 BY/DATE:
BACKGROUND:
The City Council and EDA seek to sell the (former library) facility at 820 40th Avenue NE. This facility has not
been engaged in library activities since approximately July 1, 2016. The costs to hold real estate for resale;
including property insurance, utilities, and routine maintenance, are appropriately classified in the City and
EDA financial records as a community development activity. The attached resolution authorizes a one-time
project budget for this activity in the Redevelopment Fund 420, which currently has an available fund balance
of approximately $1 million.
The amount proposed below is equal to the 2015 costs to hold the property in an occupied status.
Accordingly, staff estimates this amount should provide for holding the property for longer than twelve
months in an unoccupied status. Staff also recommends that following the sale, Fund 420 be reimbursed from
the sales proceeds for the amount of holding costs actually expended.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the following motions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2016-103, there being ample copies available to the
public.
MOTION: Move to adopt City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, Resolution 2016-103, being a resolution to
appropriate a project budget in Redevelopment Fund 420 for the costs to hold 820 40th Avenue NE until sold.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 2016-103
Insurance 7,900
Electric 11,200
Water 600
Gas 4,300
Sewer 600
Certain Maintenance:
Fire Detection Contract 700
HVAC Contract 3,800
Elevator Contract 1,400
Rounding (500)
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 30,000
CouncilLetter_Res2016_103_ProjectBudgetFor820_40th.docx
7B
10
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-103
A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, appropriating a project budget
in Redevelopment Fund 420 for the costs to hold 820 40th Avenue NE until sold.
Whereas, in response to a 2014 referendum of the eligible voters of the City of Columbia Heights, the City of
Columbia Heights contracted for the construction of a new library facility at 3939 Central Avenue Northeast;
and
Whereas, in 2016, library operations were moved to the new facility; and
Whereas, in 2016, the City of Columbia Heights and the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
endeavor to sell the former library facility, located at 820 40th Avenue Northeast, to both generate available
resources and to promote redevelopment; and
Whereas, the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights established Redevelopment Fund 420 by resolution
2002-72 to be used for redevelopment costs; and
Whereas, there are certain costs required to keep 820 40th Avenue Northeast secure and marketable until
sold, including insurance, utilities, and routine maintenance; and
Whereas, these costs were approximately $30,000 per year when the building was occupied;
Now, therefore, in accordance with all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia Heights, the City
Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following:
ORDER OF COUNCIL
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that a project budget in Redevelopment Fund 420 for the costs to hold 820 40th
Avenue NE until sold is appropriated in the amount of $30,000.
Passed this _________ day of ______________________, 2016
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Gary L. Peterson, Mayor
Attest:
Katie Bruno, City Clerk/Council Secretary
11
AGENDA SECTION CONSENT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE OCTOBER 24, 2016
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER
ITEM: ADOPT RESOLUTION 2016-101 ACCEPTING THE FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR ZONE 1 STREET SEAL COAT PROJECT
AND ORDERING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING, CITY PROJECT NO. 1601
DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL:
BY/DATE: Kevin Hansen / October 19, 2016 BY/DATE:
BACKGROUND:
Staff has developed preliminary plans and prepared a Feasibility Report for Zone 1 of the Annual Seal Coat Program. The
seal coat area is located between Central Avenue and Reservoir Boulevard/Johnson Street from 37th Avenue to 47th
Avenue. In accordance with the Street Rehabilitation Policy, Zone 1 streets that were most recently rehabilitated are
being seal coated at the City’s cost (City pays for first seal coat). The map included with the Feasibility Report displays the
streets proposed for seal coat and the funding source.
The seal coat program helps preserve and maintain existing bituminous streets in good driving condition. Particular issues
are summarized below:
1.Assessment Methodology:
The Seal Coating project will be assessed on a Street and Avenue parcel basis. Avenue assessments are one-third of the
street rate extending one-half block in either direction of the Avenue. This assumes that all parcels benefit equally for the
strategy in front of their property or abutting it, in the case of the Avenue. The estimated unit cost assessment is $306
per Street parcel and $102 per Avenue parcel.
2.Financing:
The estimated construction cost is $218,160. 100% of the seal coat construction cost is assessed to property owners, or
City funded for the first rehab cycle following rehabilitation.
3.Past Assessments:
In Zone 1, property owners on 44th Avenue from Tyler Place to Reservoir Boulevard and adjoining streets have had a street
or avenue assessment for mill and overlay. Some of these owners will receive an assessment for seal coat on McLeod
Street, Royce Street, and Leander Lane.
4.Meeting dates:
Staff is recommending the public improvement hearing be scheduled immediately after the Assessment Hearings on
December 5, 2016.
The bidding process will be administered by the City of Coon Rapids as part of a multi-city JPA for various street
maintenance activities.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2016-101, there being ample copies available to
the public.
Move to adopt Resolution 2016-101, being a resolution accepting the Feasibility Report for Zone 1 Street Seal Coat, City
Project No. 1601, and ordering the Public Improvement Hearing beginning at 7:00 p.m. on December 5, 2016.
ATTACHMENT(S): Resolution 2016-101
Feasibility Report
Map
7C
12
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-101
A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota,
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a Seal Coat Program, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2016-85 a report has been prepared by the City Engineer with
reference to the Program, and the following street(s):
• Between Central Avenue and Reservoir Boulevard/Johnson Street from 37th Avenue to 47th Avenue
WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is feasible, necessary and
cost-effective, and
Said report is hereby received by the City Council of Columbia Heights on October 24, 2016.
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. The Council will consider the improvement of such streets in accordance with the report and the
assessment of abutting or benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of
$218,160.
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 5th day of December, 2016, in the
City Council Chambers at 590 40th Avenue N.E. at 7:00 P.M. and the City Clerk shall give mailed and
published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law.
ORDER OF COUNCIL
Passed this 24th day of October, 2016
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Gary L. Peterson, Mayor
Attest:
Katie Bruno, City Clerk/Council Secretary
13
City of Columbia Heights
FEASIBILITY REPORT
FOR
2017 STREET REHABILITATION
SEAL COAT IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 1601
OCTOBER, 2016
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
637 38th Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421
763-706-3700 763-706-3701 (Fax)
14
BITUMINOUS SEAL COAT IMPROVEMENTS
ZONE 1
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
PROJECT NUMBER 1601
LOCATION: ZONE 1 – AREA BOUNDED BY
CENTRAL AVENUE TO RESERVOIR BOULEVARD/JOHNSON STREET
37TH AVENUE TO 47TH AVENUE
The following local bituminous streets are included in Zone 1:
Peters Place Gould Avenue to Reservoir Boulevard
Gould Avenue Central Avenue to Reservoir Boulevard
41st Avenue Dead end to Reservoir Boulevard
42nd Avenue Central Avenue to Reservoir Boulevard
42½ Avenue West cul-de-sac to East cul-de-sac
43rd Avenue Central Avenue to McLeod Street
Fillmore Street 42nd Avenue to 42½ Avenue
Pierce Street 42½ Avenue to 43½ Avenue
McLeod Street Reservoir Boulevard to 45th Avenue
Royce Street McLeod Street to 44th Avenue
Leander Lane Royce Street to 44th Avenue
45½ Avenue Fillmore Street to Cul-de-sac
46th Avenue Central Avenue to Fillmore Street
47th Avenue Fillmore Street to Johnson Street
Tyler Street 45th Avenue to 47th Avenue
Polk Street 45th Avenue to 47th Avenue
Taylor Street 45th Avenue to 47th Avenue
Fillmore Street 45th Avenue to 46th Avenue
Pierce Street 46th Avenue to 47th Avenue
Parkview Lane 46th Avenue to 46th Avenue
Johnson Street 46th Avenue to 47th Avenue
This feasibility study includes an analysis of proposed bituminous street patching
and repair, and seal coat.
IMPROVEMENTS: Repair of Concrete Curb and Gutter, Crack Sealing, Patching and Seal Coat of
Street Surface.
INITIATION: City Council, as part of an ongoing bituminous street preservation strategy.
2
15
OWNERS The location of each street is described below and shown on the attached map.
BENEFITTING: The total number of assessed parcels is 940.
OWNERS 1. Peters Place Gould Avenue to Reservoir Boulevard (12)
ABUTTING 2. Gould Avenue Central Avenue to Reservoir Boulevard (46)
OR 3. 41st Avenue Dead end to Reservoir Boulevard ( 8)
IMPACTED: 4. 42nd Avenue Central Avenue to Reservoir Boulevard (96)
5. 42½ Avenue West cul-de-sac to East cul-de-sac (68)
6. 43rd Avenue Central Avenue to McLeod Street (73)
7. Fillmore Street 42nd Avenue to 42½ Avenue (33)
8. Pierce Street 42½ Avenue to 43½ Avenue (91)
9. McLeod Street Reservoir Boulevard to 45th Avenue (93)
10. Royce Street McLeod Street to 44th Avenue (27)
11. Leander Lane Royce Street to 44th Avenue (22)
12. 45½ Avenue Fillmore Street to Cul-de-sac (20)
13. 46th Avenue Central Avenue to Fillmore Street (78)
14. 47th Avenue Fillmore Street to Johnson Street (25)
15. Tyler Street 45th Avenue to 47th Avenue (35)
16. Polk Street 45th Avenue to 47th Avenue (42)
17. Taylor Street 45th Avenue to 47th Avenue (41)
18. Fillmore Street 45th Avenue to 46th Avenue (53)
19. Pierce Street 46th Avenue to 47th Avenue (20)
20. Parkview Lane 46th Avenue to 46th Avenue (40)
21. Johnson Street 46th Avenue to 47th Avenue (17)
ISSUES: The City Council identified the need to preserve and maintain the existing
bituminous streets and extends the life of the pavement in good driving
condition.
FEASIBILITY: The improvement as proposed is necessary, cost-effective, and technically
feasible. The project is recommended as proposed in the study. The
improvements, once completed, will be a benefit to the properties served.
SCHEDULE: Construction is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2017 with substantial
completion occurring in late summer. The seal coat contract is administered by
the City of Coon Rapids under a joint powers agreement with several north-
metro cities.
Council accepts Feasibility Report Oct 24, 2016
Council orders Public Improvement Hearing Nov 14, 2016
Public Improvement Hearing and Council orders Public Improvement Project Dec 1, 2016
Bid Opening for Seal Coating (City of Coon Rapids) February, 2017
Columbia Heights Council Concurs with Bids March, 2017
3
16
Coon Rapids’ Council Awards Contract April, 2017
Begin Construction – Bituminous Repairs (Force Account) May, 2017
Begin Construction – Seal Coat (Project-wide) June/July, 2017
Construction Completed (Project-wide) August 31, 2017
FINANCING: The estimated cost for Seal Coating is $218,160 (construction cost only).
ASSESSMENT: The Seal Coating project for those street listed above will be 100% assessed on a
Street and Avenue parcel basis. Avenue assessments are 1/3 of the street rate
extending ½ block in either direction of the Avenue. This assumes that all parcels
benefit equally for the strategy in front of their property or abutting it, in the
case of the Avenue. The estimated unit cost assessment is $306.00.
DESCRIPTION OF WORK INVOLVED:
• Public Works Staff – provides bituminous street repairs and patching throughout the
Seal Coat project zone. Includes cutting and removal of deficient segments of street
section, milling of larger areas of deficient bituminous areas, and patching or paving
with new bituminous.
• Concrete curb and gutter repairs – provide repairs to short segments of curb & gutter
due to damage or joint separation which impedes gutter flow.
• Crack sealing – rout and seal cracks on select streets.
• Application of Seal Coat (emulsion and cover aggregate) – Application of emulsion by
computer controlled mechanical sprayers immediately followed by spreading FA-2 or
FA-2 modified granite or trap rock as a cover aggregate. The road surface is finished by
rolling with a tire-based roller for proper aggregate penetration and distribution.
4
17
2017 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS – PROJECT 1601
ZONE 1 STREET SEAL COATING PROGRAM
(Sections 25 and 36, T30N, R24W)
Seal Coating:
Estimated Cost $218,160
Estimated Cost per Parcel
Street: $ 306.00
Avenue: $ 102.00
5
18
AV
E
47
T
H
PIERCE
ST FILLMORE
AV
E
46
T
H
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
JOHNSON
TAYLOR
POLK
TYLER
UPLAND
GO
L
F
P
L
L
N
M
A
I
D
E
N
AV
E
45
T
H
AV
E
44
1
/
2
45
1
/
2
AV
E
ST
AV
E
ARTHUR
PL ARTHUR
BLVD
A
V
E
MC LEOD
43
R
D
4
4
T
H
LEANDER
ST ROYCE
AV
E
43
1
/
2
ST
AV
E
AV
E
44
T
H
43
R
D
AV
E
STINSON
LANE
42
N
D
B
L
V
D
41
S
T
FILLMORE AV
E
42
N
D
AV
E
STINSON
AV
E
AV
E
BLVD
ST
ST
ST
C
I
R
C
L
E
AV
E
40
T
H
40
T
H
HAYES
POLK
TYLER
R
ESE
R
V
OIR
VAN BUREN
GO
U
L
D
ST
ST
ST
ST
AV
E
39
1
/
2
BLVD
AVE
39
T
H
ST
ST
AV
E
39
T
H
ST
T
T
CLEVELAND
ARTHUR
AV
E
PETERS
AVE
TERRACE
BLVD
41
S
T
VAN BUREN
BENJAMINST
IVANHOE PL
RESERVOIR BLVD
RESERVOIR BLVD
BENJAMIN PL
ULYSSES ST
VAN BURENST
42
1
/
2
AV
E
PARKVIEW LN
BUCHANAN ST
TYLER PL
TYLER PL
45
T
H
C H A T H A M R OA D
H E I G H T S D R I V E
ST
ST PIERCE
PL
City of Columbia Heights LEGEND SEAL COAT (Assessed)SEAL COAT (City Share)
®
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS GIS / ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Map Date: Map Author:K YoungSeptember, 20162017 PROPOSED
SE
A
L
COAT STREETS 19
AGENDA SECTION CONSENT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE OCTOBER 24, 2016
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER
ITEM: FINAL PAYMENT FOR ZONE 7B SEAL COAT AND CITY PARKING LOT SEAL COAT OR FOG SEAL
DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL:
BY/DATE: Kevin Hansen / October 19, 2016 BY/DATE:
BACKGROUND:
The contractor has completed the 2016 Seal Coat and Fog Seal project. This program consisted of applying an
asphalt emulsion and cover aggregate on bituminous streets in Zone 7B and on select older city parking lots,
as well as applying an asphalt emulsion on select newer parking lots. These bituminous streets included the
local streets between California/Main Street and University Avenue from 37th Avenue to 45th Avenue, with the
exception of 45th Avenue. 45th Avenue was included with the 2016 Street Rehabilitation Program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
For the Zone 7B project, approximately 40% of the seal coat is being funded through assessments and 60% is
being paid for by the Infrastructure fund. (The first seal coat after street rehabilitation is paid for by the City.)
The parking lots are being paid for with General Government Building funds. Staff recommends final payment
to the contractor, as work has been completed in accordance with the contract documents.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Move to accept the work for 2016 Seal Coat and Fog Seal, City Project No. 1501
(Zone 7B) and Project No. 1401 (Parking Lot Preservation), and authorize final payment of $5,310.00 to
Pearson Bros, Inc. of Hanover, Minnesota.
ATTACHMENTS: Engineer’s Report of Final Acceptance
7D
20
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ENGINEER’S REPORT OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE
2016 STREET SEAL COAT PROJECT ZONE 7B
CITY PROJECT NUMBER 1501
2016 CITY PARKING LOT SEAL COAT/FOG SEAL
CITY PROJECT NUMBER 1401
October 19, 2016
TO THE CITY COUNCIL
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
This is to advise you that I have reviewed the work under contract to Pearson Bros. Inc. The
work consisted of bituminous seal coat application of local streets in Zone 7B and older City
parking lots. The parking lots at the Public Safety Building and the Liquor Stores were fog
sealed. The contractor has completed the project in accordance with the contract.
It is recommended; herewith, that final payment be made for said improvements to the
contractor in the amount as follows:
ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE $123,790.00
CHANGE ORDERS $ 0.00
FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $
FINAL WORK APPROVED $102,213.15
ALL PRIOR PAYMENTS ($ 96,903.15)
BALANCE DUE $ 5,310.00
Sincerely,
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Kevin R. Hansen
City Engineer
21
AGENDA SECTION CONSENT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE OCTOBER 24, 2016
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER
ITEM: AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR CENTRAL AVENUE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS,
PROJECT 1608
DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL:
BY/Date: Kathy Young / October 5, 2016 BY/Date:
BACKGROUND: The City of Columbia Heights received funding for the Central Avenue Safety Improvements
from 47th to 51st Avenues totaling $930,000 through federal funds (90%) and local State Aid funds (10%). The
source of the funds is MnDOT’s Highway Safety Improvement Program or HSIP. The proposed improvements
will include pedestrian and vehicle lighting, new sidewalks, and signage focusing on pedestrian safety in the
corridor. The Council authorized staff to prepare a Request for Proposal for professional services at their
March 28, 2016 meeting (RFP attached).
ANALYSIS/CONCLUSIONS: The City of Columbia Heights sent out Requests for Proposals requesting
professional engineering services to five (5) firms to provide engineering design and construction
administration for Central Avenue safety improvements. Three proposals were received meeting the
minimum requirements of the RFP. The proposals were reviewed for:
•Understands Requirements •Firm Experience
•Approach / Schedule •Past Performance
•Scope / Work Program •References /Resources
•Qualifications / Project Team •Time Frame to Complete
•Written Proposal •Fee Structure
Proposal fees were as follows:
Bolton & Menk $156,850
Kimley Horn $184,661
SEH $216,500
The proposals were reviewed by staff (City Manager, Director of Public Works, Police Chief, Community
Development Director, Economic Development Manager, and the Assistant City Engineer) with the following
scored results:
Firm
Total
Score
Average
Score
Bolton & Menk 523 87.17
Kimley-Horn 502 83.67
SEH 542 90.33
Based on the proposal content, the review group had SEH as the highest ranking consultant with the best
7E
22
City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2
project understanding, work program and schedule. While Bolton & Menk had the lowest cost, SEH provided
the best overall response for this project. Within the fees, it should be noted, that SEH had 568 more hours
programmed into their work program than Bolton & Menk.
Based on the ranked, weighted overall score, staff is recommending accepting the proposal from SEH in the
amount of $216,500.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Move to award the Central Avenue Safety Improvements, Project 1608, to the
consulting engineering firm of SEH, Inc. based upon their reviewed and highest ranking proposal for a cost not-
to-exceed $216,500 appropriated from Fund 402-51608-3050.
ATTACHMENT(S): Request for Proposal (RFP)
Addendum 1
23
REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
CENTRAL AVENUE (TH 65): 47TH TO 51ST AVENUES SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES
I. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The City of Columbia Heights invites qualified professional engineering firms to submit a proposal
to provide professional services for Central Avenue Safety Improvements no later than 3:30 PM
September 28th, 2016 to the Director of Public Works.
In submitting a proposal to provide the requested professional services, the following is required
in order to expedite the review process by the representatives of the City.
1. The length of the proposal should not exceed ten (10) pages, excluding figures or charts,
resumes of personnel, firm experience, qualifications, site plans, etc.
2. The proposal should not contain non-applicable promotional materials and should address
only the points requested in this document, including proposed time schedule to complete
the work and associated fees. If requested elsewhere in this RFP, provide separate
schedules and fees for separate sections of work.
3. Five (5) print copies of the proposal should be addressed to the Director of Public Works,
637 38th Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, Minnesota, 55421, to be received by 3:30 PM
September 28th 2016. In addition, a digital copy of the proposal should be emailed to
khansen@columbiaheightsmn.gov
4. If the firm is proposing to use sub consultants, the sub consultant should be identified
along with how the work will be divided.
5. The City of Columbia Heights reserves the right to reject any proposal that does not
comply with the requirements of this RFP.
6. The City Council will consider the proposals at their regularly scheduled meeting on
October 10th, 2016.
II. BACKGROUND
The City of Columbia Heights is planning on implementing pedestrian and vehicle safety
improvements along the segment of Trunk Highway 65, commonly known as Central Avenue NE,
between 47th and 51st Avenues. Central Avenue is one of the most dangerous corridors in
24
RFP – CENTRAL AVENUE (TH 65) SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Page 2
Minnesota with a much higher than average pedestrian hit rate. The project segment length is
approximately 0.36 miles of urban median-divided, 4-lane trunk highway with an AADT of 25,500
vehicles per day south of 49th Avenue and an AADT of 27,000 vehicles per day north of 49th
Avenue.
In an effort to drastically reduce vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pedestrian accidents, the City of
Columbia Heights has continued to partner with federal, state and local agencies to improve
safety conditions present along Central Avenue. Previous safety improvements have consisted of
a pedestrian overpass at 49th Avenue and the restriction of other pedestrian crossings throughout
the corridor by enforcement and signage. While the installation of a pedestrian overpass has
greatly facilitated safe crossings, particularly for the pedestrians walking to and from schools
adjacent to 49th Avenue, the project segment is unlit and still experiences pedestrian mid-block
crossings.
The City of Columbia Heights has been awarded Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) funding in the amount of $833,976, fiscal year 2017. The City has allocated an additional
10% match of the HSIP funding for a total of $930,204 to improve pedestrian and vehicle safety
conditions between 47th Avenue and 51st Avenue along Central Avenue. The City of Columbia
Heights would also consider additional safety improvement features or other value-added
beautification items that will improve the overall outcome of the project. If the additional safety
improvements are over the aforementioned total, the City will consider allocating additional
funds towards this project.
The City views this project as a unique opportunity to effect a gateway to the community, with
improved vehicular and pedestrian safety as the key goal in the design process. Other key project
goals are meeting ADA requirements and creating a design consistent with the initiatives of the
City Architectural Design guidelines for the Central Avenue Corridor.
III. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The City of Columbia Heights is seeking proposals from professional engineering firms experienced
in transportation engineering and lighting design for the development of conceptual plans, final
design, bidding documents and construction administration for this project. The overall scope of
services sought is the design and construction administration services for a Federally funded
(HSIP) project.
Firms that submit a proposal should demonstrate their experience and qualifications in dealing
with similar projects in nature. Include in the proposal references for at least two (2) safety
improvement projects that your firm has successfully completed in the last eight (8) years. Firms
that do not demonstrate successfully completion of at least two (2) safety improvement projects
will not be considered.
25
RFP – CENTRAL AVENUE (TH 65) SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Page 3
The consultant team shall have adequate staff resources to provide the full range of professional
services required to complete all tasks and objectives inherent to the work identified.
Responders are encouraged to propose additional tasks or activities if they will substantially
improve the results of the project. These should be identified separately on the cost proposal.
The consultant will provide the following services which will include at a minimum:
• Project Memorandum
• Base Mapping / Construction Surveying
• Conceptual Design
• Public Involvement Plan
• Project Cost Estimating
• Governmental Permit Applications (MnDOT & Anoka County)
• Right of Way Plan (anticipate R/W Certificate #1A)
• Utility Coordination
• Project Staging Plans
• Traffic Control Plan
• Lighting Plans
• Sidewalk Plans
• Aesthetic Design
• Final Construction Plans and Specifications
• Bidding Documents and Advertising.
• Construction Administration (incl. inspections and construction staking)
1. Preliminary Design
• A Project Memorandum. Development of required environmental documentation in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Mn/DOT State Aid
Standards.
• Provide a topographic survey of the project area to determine existing conditions and
verify the existing right-of-way in the project area.
• Gather existing public and private utility mapping for the project area. Request field
locates for the existing utilities and coordinate field surveying to accurately map the
existing utilities for plans.
• Coordinate geotechnical activities for the project and designate soil borings requirements.
The City will contract Geotechnical consulting separately.
• A design in conformance with current Mn/DOT State Aid standards.
• Coordination with all utilities within project limits and/or impacted by the project in
accordance with Mn/DOT Utility Design Manual.
26
RFP – CENTRAL AVENUE (TH 65) SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Page 4
• It is not anticipated that additional right of way will be required for this project. If the
additional right of way needs are identified, the consultant shall prepare legal descriptions
and sketches for each impacted parcel (at additional cost). The City will perform the right
of way acquisition on the project.
• Design of street lighting and pedestrian lighting system.
• Sidewalk and pedestrian ramp design meeting the most current ADA and MnDOT
requirements.
• Aesthetic Design: The City is interested in creating a barrier that may include landscaping,
decorative fencing or similar treatments that will that will enhance the aesthetics of the
corridor while providing a deterrent for pedestrian crossings.
• Mn/DOT approved Level 1 geometric layout.
• Mn/DOT Federal-Aid approved final construction plans and specifications. A complete set
of the plans and specs should be provided to the City electronically in AutoCAD and .pdf
format.
2. Final Design
• The consultant will be responsible for submitting permit applications warranted by the
proposed work. The City of Columbia Heights will pay any required permit fees.
• Prepare final design plans based upon preliminary comments from MnDOT, City staff and
the public.
• Attend one Council workshop / public meeting for input consideration in final design.
• Submit final design package in accordance with Mn/DOT requirements.
• Design review / revisions / signatures
3. Coordination Activities
• Prepare monthly status updates and invoices.
• Attend up to four (4) coordination meetings with City staff and/or MnDOT.
• Prepare for and attend two City Council workshops for design review and input
(preliminary and final design).
• Prepare for and attend one public ‘open house’ type meeting to gain community input.
• Identify and coordinate local business access impacts.
• Coordinate review by Anoka County as it relates to 49th Avenue (CSAH 4).
• Prepare preliminary cost estimates including aesthetic amenities.
27
RFP – CENTRAL AVENUE (TH 65) SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Page 5
4. Construction Inspection and Staking.
• Coordinate with Mn/DOT Federal, State Aid and Permit departments
• Conduct and document Preconstruction and Weekly construction meetings
• Address business access, pedestrian access, ISD 13 and Metro bus stops/routes
• Review and approve shop drawings
• Coordinate NPDES permit application submittal with Contractor
• Schedule materials testing and Plant monitoring by Mn/DOT
• Document changes to plans
• Monitor the project status and budget and report to the City
• Document pay items and prepare payment vouchers
• Prepare and submit Work orders/Change orders/Supplemental agreements if needed
• Prepare and submit Change of Construction Status and Weekly Construction Diary
• Monitor Labor compliance requirements and EEO Documentation
All construction inspectors shall be engineers or certified technicians with experience in the type
of construction being observed. Inspectors shall maintain a daily diary as recommended by
Mn/DOT. Inspectors shall monitor erosion control in accordance with the project SWPPP.
5. Information Provided By City
Assume that the City will provide the following information:
• Available as-built drawings and/or engineering plans for project area including the
pedestrian bridge.
• Any available aerial photography or topographic mapping or GIS mapping.
• Any available topographic survey with point data provided in compatible format.
6. Department Contacts
Prospective responders who may have questions regarding this Request for Proposals may
call or write:
Kevin Hansen, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Columbia Heights
637 38th Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
(763) 706-3705
khansen@columbiaheightsmn.gov
28
RFP – CENTRAL AVENUE (TH 65) SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Page 6
7. Project Timelines
City staff intends on having the evaluation and initial selection of the consultant completed by
October 5th 2016 for Council review and presenting a final recommendation to the City Council
at their October 10th 2016 regular meeting.
Project timeframe goals are indicated on the attached ‘Federal Aid Kickoff Meeting’ notes
dated August 9th, 2016.
IV. PROPOSAL CONTENTS
1. Project Approach
Should reflect the firm's understanding of the requirements of the project and
present a task-by-task description of the work to be accomplished. Merely
restating the scope of services will not be acceptable.
2. Schedule
Should include a schedule depicting the task activities, their inter-relationships, and
the projected completion dates. It should also contain a discussion of the firm's
total staffing and its procedures for maintaining schedule compliance in the event
of unforeseen delays or other such circumstances.
3. Project Personnel
Should outline the general responsibilities of the firms to be involved if more than
one. Should also contain the names of personnel with key responsibilities for the
work and a description of their role and duties for this job. It must also include an
organizational chart for these people, delineating responsibilities and showing lines
of authority and communication. It should also contain biographical resumes of
these individuals with emphasis on their background on comparable projects and
similar roles to those proposed for this project.
4. Relevant Experience
Should discuss demonstrated experience of firm and project team with studies of
similar scope and magnitude to the proposed study. An outline of the responder’s
background and experience with particular emphasis on state and local level of
government work. Identify personnel to conduct the project and detail their
training and work experience. No change in personnel assigned to the project will
be permitted without approval of the City. Provide a minimum of two (2) examples
29
RFP – CENTRAL AVENUE (TH 65) SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Page 7
of same or similar projects completed by the responder’s firm or project team
personnel.
5. Performance
A detailed work plan identifying the work tasks to be accomplished and the budget
hours to be expended on each task and subtask. This work plan will be used as a
scheduling and managing tool by the City and will serve as the basis for invoicing.
The work plan shall also identify the deliverables at key milestones in the project
and shall indicate the level of City participation in the project as well as any other
services to be provided by the City.
6. References
Should contain references that may be contacted for the similar projects discussed
in the Experience and Performance Sections. A listing of the names, addresses and
telephone numbers of at least three (3) references for which the respondent has
performed similar work in the last five years.
7. Schedule of Rates and Charges
Should contain a schedule of hourly billing rates for each category of professional,
technical and clerical employee. Specifically, provide an hourly rate for each
employee who may be involved in this project. Also, include rates of miscellaneous
charges, such as copies, mileage, etc.
Please separate costs for the total cost for preliminary and final design services
through the bidding stage, and separate for the construction services phase.
8. Benefits to Columbia Heights
All things considered, summarize why you believe the City of Columbia Heights
should retain your firm to perform this project.
30
RFP – CENTRAL AVENUE (TH 65) SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Page 8
V. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SELECTION PROCEDURES:
Proposals will be evaluated on the following criteria:
(70% of total review score):
• Demonstrated understanding of the requirements of this project and the concerns of the
City of Columbia Heights.
• Relevance and suitability of the overall project approach and schedule.
• Detail, scope and program for the work.
• Qualifications and expertise of the key personnel to be assigned and their proven ability to
work together as a team on similar projects.
• Experience of the firm and project team in conducting similar work.
• Record of past performance on similar projects.
• Comments and opinions provided by references.
• Resources of the firm to conduct and complete this project in a satisfactory manner.
Factors to be considered include size of the firm, current workload, and ability and
willingness to commit key personnel.
• Clarity, conciseness and organization of the proposal.
(30% of total review score):
• Total estimated cost of the project and Rate schedule submitted.
Proposal Scoring
Representatives of the City will evaluate all proposals received by the deadline. A 100-point scale
will be used to create the evaluation recommendation. The factors weighing on which proposals
will be judged include the following:
1. Project Criteria .................................................................................................... 70%
2. Cost ..................................................................................................................... 30%
Total 100%
31
RFP – CENTRAL AVENUE (TH 65) SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Page 9
VI. Limitations, Terms and Conditions
This Request for Proposal does not commit the City of Columbia Heights to award a contract, pay costs
incurred in the preparation of a proposal or to procure a contract for services or supplies. The City of
Columbia Heights reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result of this
request, to negotiate with any qualified source, or to cancel in part or entirety this Request for Proposal if it
is in the best interest of the City of Columbia Heights to do so. If, for any reason, the firm selected is not
able to commence services under its proposal within 20 days after its award, the City reserves the right to
award the contract to the next most qualified firm. The City will retain ownership of all reports, site plans or
other submittals prepared under the proposal. This proposal will be the only submittal for firm selection.
Interviews are not proposed as a selection criterion. The firm that the City believes to be the best qualified
based on the criteria above will be invited to enter into a contract to perform this project. If you have any
questions, please contact me at 763/706-3705.
Yours truly,
Kevin R. Hansen, PE
Public Works Director/City Engineer
KH:kh
Attachments
32
1
RFP for: CENTRAL AVENUE (TH 65) SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
Dated: September 19, 2016
III. SCOPE OF SERVICES
1. Preliminary Design
• Aesthetic Design: The City is interested in creating a barrier that may include
landscaping, decorative fencing or similar treatments that will enhance the aesthetics of
the corridor while providing a deterrent for pedestrian crossings.
Clarification:
The level of effort shall include a feasibility level report for the 47th to 49th median area,
including cost estimate. It shall also include review/feedback from MnDOT on the
viability of such treatment. The report shall include an analysis of raised and inverted
type treatments, or a combination thereof. If the City elects to install any of the aesthetic
treatments, a separate fee shall be negotiated for the design and construction
administration for this addition.
5. Information Provided by the City
MnDOT completed a mill and overlay project from Washington Ave (Minneapolis) to 53rd
Ave in 2012, SP 0207-95. As part of that project, all of the pedestrian ramps were
reconstructed. Compliance Checklist documents are available for the ped ramps at 49th
Avenue and TH 65/Central.
Sincerely,
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Kevin R. Hansen, P.E.
City Engineer
763-706-3705 763-706-3701(fax)
khansen@columbiaheightsmn.gov
ADDENDUM NO. 1
33
AGENDA SECTION CONSENT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE OCTOBER 24, 2016
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER
ITEM: APPROVE RESOLUTION 2016-102 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN I/I GRANT AGREEMENT
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL:
BY/DATE: KEVIN HANSEN / OCTOBER 19, 2016 BY/DATE:
BACKGROUND: In 2014 Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) announced an I/I Grant
program for cities identified as contributors to excess I/I by MCES. Through state bonding, $2 million has been
provided to Metropolitan Council specific to funding I/I reduction measures. MCES has informed Columbia
Heights that $25,000 is available to help offset costs spent on I/I reduction projects between May of 2014 to
October of 2016.
ANALYSIS/CONCLUSIONS: Columbia Heights has focused it’s I/I program on sanitary sewer lining and structure
repair or replacement. During this time period, over $380,000 has been spent on lining and structure
rehabilitation – so the City will clearly qualify for the grant amount. The submittal documentation for the grant
application is due by October 30, 2016.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the resolution approving the application for grant funds and
authorizing the City Engineer as the designated representative for the program.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2016-102, there being ample copies
available to the public.
Move to approve Resolution 2016-102 authorizing the City of Columbia Heights to execute an agreement with
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) for reimbursement of I/I reduction costs in the amount
of $25,000, and furthermore, to authorize the City Engineer to act as the designated representative.
ATTACHMENT(S): Grant Guidelines
Resolution 2016-102
7F
34
2014 Municipal Grant Requirements, Guidelines & Timelines
INFO only:
State Requirements from the Appropriation
• The grant must be for capital improvements in municipal wastewater collection systems to reduce the amount of
inflow and infiltration to the Metropolitan Council’s metropolitan sanitary sewer disposal system.
• To be eligible for a grant, a city must be identified by the Metropolitan Council as a contributor of excessive
inflow and infiltration or have had peak flows within the 20% threshold.
• Grants from this appropriation are for up to 50 percent of the cost to mitigate the I/I.
• Grant awards will be based on applications from eligible cities that identify eligible capital costs.
• Grants are subject to Council Guidelines.
State Requirements for Capital Improvements (bond dollars)
• The infrastructure must be owned by the city receiving the grant.
• The project benefit must last more than one fiscal period.
• The capital expenditure must be made to a “fixed asset” (land, buildings, land improvement, equipment).
• A fixed asset being acquired must be “long-lived” (at least 10 years).
• Normal operating and other overhead costs will not qualify.
• Work proposed must satisfy MMB (Minnesota Management and Budget) requirements for title declaration or
waiver therefrom pursuant to M.S. 16A.695 and the Commissioners Orders related thereto. Note that MCES is in
process of securing a “blanket waiver” for the recording (to property title), but only for certain improvements
and with a city resolution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Council “Guidelines”:
• The Council identifies cities as contributors of excess I&I that have (a) received a Preliminary I/I Surcharge letter
from MCES since 2007, and (b) responded to the Council’s “Preliminary Surcharge” notification with some type
of investigative or mitigation efforts which were reported to MCES. In addition, cities identified as having had a
measured flow rate within 20 percent of its allowable council-determined inflow and infiltration limits are eligible
to apply.
• Only construction costs will qualify; i.e. no costs of studies, engineering or planning shall be eligible.
• Grants shall be for a percentage of actual, reasonable and verifiable I/I mitigation construction costs. The
percentage shall be determined by the process described below.
• Qualified spending on approved projects can occur between May 20, 2014 and any date that allows receipt of pay
claims at the Council no later than October 30, 2016. The 2015 Legislature approved an additional $1.5M of State
Bond funds to be rolled into this grant program. As such, these additional funds can only be applied to project
work that undertaken no earlier than the appropriation’s effective date of June 14, 2015.
• Grant awards will be paid on a reimbursement basis upon completion of the project(s) and allocation to all
participants.
Process (see calendar below):
• MCES will notify all eligible cities and request grant applications. The notice will include a draft agreement, with
all terms final except for the dollars and percentage to be awarded.
• After all applications are received, Council will review eligibility of proposed expenses
and determine a Preliminary Minimum Allocation (PMA) of grant
funds based on Part 1 of this formula:
35
Page - 2 | July 10, 2015 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
- Part 1: Each submitting city will receive the lesser of $25,000 or 50% of the submitted eligible project
costs, and
- Part 2: The remainder of the funds will be preliminarily allocated based on an allocation to all cities (that
have submitted eligible costs) proportional to the cities’ remaining maximum grant after Part 1. The
award to any city under this part shall be reduced where necessary to make sure that the total of the two
parts does not exceed 50% of eligible costs (as required by law). Part 2 calculations are estimates only as
final allocations cannot be determined until all projects are complete.
• All cities will be notified of its PMA and a potential final award amount through a letter of intent from the
Council.
• When projects are completed, cities submit summaries of work completed (with invoices) and a Certification
(notarized form confirming fee simple ownership or easements for locations where work was completed with a
description or map of these locations) and a resolution from City Council authorizing application and execution of
the grant.
• MCES will review completed project submissions and apply the lesser of 50% of the eligible I/I abatement costs
or $25,000 to each city. Then, any remaining funds would be applied proportionately to cities’ eligible expenses
that have more than $25,000 in eligible I/I expenses, until all available funds are allocated (but still limited to an
overall maximum of 50% or eligible). This allocation process results in Final Reimbursement Amount (FRA) for
all participating cities.
• MCES will provide final Grant agreements, to be executed by a date certain.
• Upon return and execution of signed agreements, payments will be processed to cities based on invoices
submitted to determine FRA.
• The Council reserves the right to change these guidelines, if in its sole discretion the results of the process do not
equitably allocate the funds.
Calendar:
Council approval of “guidelines” August 27, 2014
Send notice of final grant program guidelines to cities, requesting applications – Original August 28, 2014
Grant proposals due from cities – Original September 26, 2014
MCES notifies cities of their assigned PMA - Original October 10, 2014
Notice & solicitation of applications from newly participating cities July 10, 2015
Grant applications due from newly participating cities September 1, 2015
MCES provide newly participating cities Letter of Intent, PMA & estimated FRA October 9, 2015
Cities submit pay claims for completed projects October 30, 2016
FRA determination, grant agreement distributed November 15, 2016
MCES processes reimbursement upon receipt of signed agreement
36
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-102
A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota,
WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Legislature has appropriated $2,000,000 in general obligation bond
funds for grants to municipalities to reduce inflow and infiltration (I/I) in their public system
infrastructure, administered by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES); and
WHEREAS, application to participate in the MCES I/I Municipal Grant Program was made on September
2014 for reimbursement of a percentage of the construction costs of 320,000, Sanitary Sewer
Rehabilitation Projects 1404 and 1504; and
WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights was notified by MCES of approval to participate in the Grant
Program and of an estimated final reimbursement amount of $25,000, updated May 12, 2016; and
WHEREAS, a Grant Agreement between Metropolitan Council Environmental Services and the City of
Columbia Heights has been drafted by MCES.
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. The City Council hereby approves application for MCES Bond Fund Municipal I/I Grant Program.
2. The City Council hereby approves the Grant Agreement between MCES and the City of
Columbia Heights, and furthermore authorizes the City Engineer to act as the designated
representative.
ORDER OF COUNCIL
Passed this 24th day of October, 2016
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Gary L. Peterson, Mayor
Attest:
Katie Bruno, City Clerk/Council Secretary
37
AGENDA SECTION CONSENT ITEM
ITEM NO. 7G
MEETING DATE OCTOBER 24, 2016
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS – CITY COUNCIL
ITEM: Approval of a Grant Application to DEED for Development of the Legends of Columbia Heights
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL:
BY/DATE: Keith M Dahl, October 17, 2016 BY/DATE:
BACKGROUND:
Dominium has begun construction on the minimum improvements for the Legends of Columbia Heights
located at the corner of University Avenue NE and 37th Avenue (Subject Property). During excavation and
grading of the underground parking lot, petroleum impacted soils and foundry waste contamination were
encountered in excessive amounts. Thus, excavation of the polluted soils was conducted to remediate the
Subject Property for development. Dominium has excavated and removed 22,000 tons of contaminated soils
and that figure may increase upon completion of the excavation activities. The soil excavated was at an
average depth of nine (9) to fourteen (14) feet below ground level. Currently, Dominium has spent over
$1 million of their $1.2 million contingency budget for removing contamination from a site initially expected to
have already been remediated.
Previously, the City of Columbia Heights (City) has conducted a number of environmental investigation reports
across Huset Park, formally known as the Industrial Park. These reports identified numerous contaminants
across the site that required remediation before redevelopment could occur. The City partnered with previous
developers, environmental consultants, the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development (DEED), the Metropolitan Council (Met Council), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA), and the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) in an effort to remediate Huset Park for
redevelopment.
Specifically, for the Subject Property, the City authorized excavation of contaminated soils and foundry waste
across the entire site. A total of approximately 53,800 tons of foundry waste and 1,400 tons of petroleum
impacted soils were excavated from the Subject Property. The contaminants were identified to be located
near the surface of the soil, which prompted excavation of soil on an average depth of five (5) to eight (8) feet
below ground level. However, it was noted in the Response Action Plan Implementation Report prepared by
Carlson Professional Services, Inc. (Carlson McCain) that some contamination remained in portions of soil
adjacent to live utility lines in the right-of -ways on the west and south side of the Subject Property.
Before Dominium proposed a residential development for the Subject Property, the proposed development
was anticipated to be commercial. Based on the previous anticipated use, the excavation of the contaminated
soils only required a maximum depth of five (5) to eight (8) feet. However, since the residential use
incorporates an underground parking ramp, the required depth for excavation is greater than the depth
excavated previously for the contaminated soils. Thus, Dominium encountered excessive amounts of
petroleum impacted soils and foundry waste contamination when excavating for the construction of the
parking ramp.
Dominium has requested that the City apply for the Contamination Cleanup Grant offered through DEED to
offset portions of costs associated with the contamination cleanup on the Subject Property. DEED grants
require applicants to be statutory or home rule charter cities, economic development authorities, housing and
City of Columbia Heights – CC Letter 38
City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2
redevelopment authorities, counties, or port authorities. While DEED requires specific applicants, those
applicants can sponsor private entities for grant funding. For Council’s consideration is approval of the grant
application prepared by Braun Intertec on behalf of Dominium and the City of Columbia Heights. If approved,
the grant application will be submitted to DEED on or before November 1, 2016.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adopting Resolution 2016-96, a resolution authorizing the approval of a grant application to
the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Contamination Clean-up and
Investigation Grant Program for the development of the Legends of Columbia Heights.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
Motion: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2016-96, there being ample copies available to the public.
Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 2016-96, a resolution authorizing the approval of a grant application to the
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Contamination Clean-up and
Investigation Grant Program for the development of the Legends of Columbia Heights.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 2016-96 (1 Page)
2. Draft Grant Application (17 Pages)
39
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-96
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT
OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONTAMINATION CLEAN-UP AND INVESTIGATION
GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGENDS OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council (Council) for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota (City) that the City
has approved the Contamination Clean-Up grant application submitted to the Department of Employment and
Economic Development (DEED) on October 24, 2016 by the City for the Legends of Columbia Heights site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City is located within the seven county metropolitan areas defined in
Minnesota State Statue Section 473.121, subdivision 2, and is participating in the local housing incentives
program under Minnesota State Statue Section 473.254.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City act as the legal sponsor for the project contained in the Contamination
Clean-Up Grant Program to be submitted on or before November 1, 2016 and that the City Manager is hereby
authorized to apply to the DEED for funding of this project on behalf of the City.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City has the legal authority to apply for financial assistance, and the
institutional, managerial, and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City has not violated any Federal, State or local laws pertaining to fraud,
bribery, graft, kickbacks, collusion, conflict of interest or other unlawful or corrupt practice.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon approval of its application by the State of Minnesota (State), the City may
enter into an agreement with the State for the above-referenced project, and that the City certifies that it will
comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in all contract agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized to
execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant.
Passed this _________ day of ______________________, 2016
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Gary L. Peterson, President
Attest:
Katie Bruno, Council Secretary/City Clerk
Resolution 2016-96 40
FY 17
10.20.16
Contamination Cleanup Application Submittal Checklist
LOGISTICS
☐ One full original paper application with all attachments
☐ One additional paper copy with all attachments
☐ A third complete copy on a CD or other memory device (no emailed versions are
accepted)
☐ Above submitted to DEED by 4:00 p.m. on May 1 or November 1 or next business day
APPLICATION FORM CONTENT HIGHLIGHTS
☐ Legal Description of the Site
☐ Site History and Background
☐ Development Plan
☐ Cleanup and Construction Schedule
☐ Vendor and/or tax ID Numbers
☐ Completed Budget
APPLICATION ATTACHMENTS
☐ Resolution from Applicant Agency with appropriate signatures
☐ Resolution from municipality in which the site is located (if applicable)
☐ Response Action Plan (RAP)
☐ Response Action Plan approval(s)
☐ Additional environmental reports or documents
☐ Maps showing
1) current conditions of the site including labeled struct ures,
2) the proposed development including labeled structures, and
3) location(s) of contamination
☐ Appraisal or Assessor’s most current valuation notice (a value must be determined)
☐ Any additional photographs of the site
☐ Evidence of match costs and construction financing
☐ Copy of Applicant’s current audit (may provide an electronic link in lieu of hard copy)
☐ HUD ‘Invitation to Apply” letter (if applicable)
☐ City council or other documentation to indicate project has been through appropriate city
approvals
☐ Third Party Commitment Letter and/or Developer Agreement
☐ Executive Summary of the project including the applicant’s intended involvement in the
project
Cleanup – Checklist
41
FY 17
Brownfields and Redevelopment Unit
1st National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200 St. Paul, MN 55101-1351
Contamination Cleanup Grant Application and Part 1 of the Revolving Loan
Application
Cover Page
Applicant (Public Entity): Columbia Heights, Minnesota________________________
Head of Applicant Agency (e.g., Mayor): Gary Peterson____________________
Applicant Address: 590 40th Avenue Northeast ____________________________
City: Columbia Heights____________________ Zip Code: 55421___________
If the applicant is a city, what form of government? ☒ Home Rule ☐ Statutory City
For reference, please give the State Statute number which gives the applicant authority to carry
out the activities for which you are requesting grant funds. Chapter 410
Project Contact for the Public Entity: Keith Dahl, Economic Development Manager
Phone: 763-706-3674
Email: KDahl@columbiaheightsmn.gov
Mailing Address: 590 40th Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Project Manager for this project from the Public Entity, in the event of an award:
Walt Faehst, City Manager
Project Manager’s Phone and email: 763-706-3601, WFehst@columbiaheightsmn.gov
Application Author: Derek Schilling, Braun Intertec Corporation_______________________
Author’s Phone and email: 952-995-2674, dschilling@braunintertec.com
Provide a written executive summary of the project, including the applicant’s involvement
in the project to date and how the applicant intends to manage the project should a grant
be awarded.
The executive summary is included as Attachment 1.
Cleanup - 2
42
FY 17
I. SITE IDENTIFICATION AND HISTORY
SITE INFORMATION
1. Name of Site: Legends of Columbia Heights (formerly Lily Gables)
Site Address: 3700 Huset Parkway
City, County or Township: Columbia Heights, Anoka County Zip Code: 55421__
Acreage of Site: 5.84____________________Sq. Ft. of Site: _________________
If City is applicant, what form of government? ___ Home Rule Charter X Statutory City
Minnesota Legislative District # 41B
(Note: The Minnesota Legislature has a tool to look up legislative district numbers. You must
have a precise address and know the zip code of the site. Go to: Who Represents Me tool and
find the district where your project is located.
2. A. Current property owner(s): Columbia Heights Leased Housing Associates I, LLLP
When was the property purchased? _______________ For what amount? $___________
From whom was the property purchased? _____________________________________
B. Who will develop the site? Columbia Heights Leased Housing Associates I, LLLP
Will the developer own the property at any time? ☒ Yes ☐ No
When was/will the property be purchased? ____________ For what amount? $______
C. Are eminent domain proceedings necessary to acquire the property on which the cleanup
and redevelopment will occur? If so, explain any difficulties anticipated in acquiring the
site. No
D. Who will own the project site after development? Columbia Heights Leased Housing
Associates I, LLLP
When was or will the property be purchased? __________ For what amount? $________
3. Provide a legal description of the site.
SITE VALUATION: ASSESSMENT OR APPRAISAL
4. If you are applying for cleanup grant funds you may submit either assessed value
information or an appraisal. If you are applying for a revolving loan, you must submit an
appraisal and may not submit assessor’s information in place of an appraisal. If your site is
publicly-owned, you must still submit a value associated with the property.
Cleanup - 3
43
FY 17
Attach an appraisal completed by a qualified independent appraiser licensed under chapter 82B
using accepted appraisal methodology which shows the current market value (pre-cleanup) of the
property, separately taking into account the effect of the contaminants on the market value. This
value should include both the value of the land and, if applicable, any buildings on the Site.
Along with the appraisal, please include the projected value after cleanup and development.
Current Appraised Value ______________ Projected Value ______________
OR
Attach documentation showing the assessed value of the property for the latest year, as
determined by the local assessor, shown on the most recent valuation notice used under Minn.
Stat. § 273.121. Along with the assessed value, please include the projected value after cleanup
and development.
Current Assessed Value $342,000 Projected Value _____________
Documentation of the assessed value is included as Attachment 2.
MAPS AND SITE FEATURES
5. Attach an accurate and legible site and location map showing locations of prominent and
relevant site features such as buildings, retaining walls, etc. (NOTE: maps shall include
property boundaries, a north arrow and bar scale). The map(s) should show the following:
• The current condition of the site including labeled structures;
• The proposed development of the site including labeled structures; and
• The location(s) of contamination.
Adding photographs is recommended.
See attached Figures in Tab 2 for diagrams depicting current conditions, proposed
redevelopment, and areas of identified contamination. Representative photographs showing
current site conditions are included as Attachment 3.
CURRENT AND FUTURE SITE USE
6. Zoning/Land Use:
A. Current: Industrial__________ Commercial ____X___ Residential
Mixed-use___________ Other (Specify)
B. After Cleanup: Industrial ______Commercial ____X___ Residential
Mixed-use___________ Other (Specify)
7. If a change in zoning in necessary, please provide a schedule of required approvals.
8. Current economic condition:
Vacant lot _X__ Developed site________ Other
Cleanup - 4
44
FY 17
9. How many buildings are currently on site?
Industrial ___0___ How many are occupied? ______ If vacant, for how long?
Commercial ___0___ How many are occupied? ______ If vacant, for how long?
Residential ___0___ How many are occupied? ______ If vacant, for how long?
10. Year building(s) was/were built: N/A
11. Please describe the condition of the buildings on the site.
12. Is demolition required for RAP implementation? ☐ Yes ☒ No Is demolition addressed in
the RAP? ☐ Yes ☒ No
13. Please describe how site redevelopment will spur adjacent development.
SITE HISTORY
14. Please attach a brief synopsis on the history and general background of this site. This
includes but is not limited to former uses of the site, known and/or suspected causes of
contamination, etc. Also describe the current condition of the site and include a description
of existing structures and existing occupants of the site.
The Site is currently vacant grass-covered land and undergoing redevelopment. It appears
that the east-southeast side of the Site was developed with a foundry by 1912 and the
northwest corner of the Site appears to have been originally occupied by Schlock Parlor
Frame Company, a furniture manufacturer. That business was replaced before 1950 by
Illinois Cooperage Manufacturing Company, a barrel manufacturer, later called Northern
Cooperage. The Site was cleared by 2008.
The Site is located in an area of historical manufacturing use including a foundry to the
north; manufacturing facilities, a soap factory, and a linseed oil business (with aboveground
storage tanks depicted) to the east; and a spring manufacturer to the west. Based on the
available historical information it appears that the southeast side of the Site was developed
by 1912 with a foundry. Railroad tracks bounded the Site and railroad spurs serviced the
Site buildings. Underground storage tank releases have been reported at the Site.
II. CONTAMINATION
15. Is applicant enrolled in an MPCA Program? ☐ Yes ☐ No
VIC Prog. I.D. VP33240/VP33570 VIC Project Manager John Betcher Phone: 651-757-2226
PBP Prog. I.D. __________ PBP Proj. Manager ________________ Phone: ____________
Other ____________________________________________________________________
16. Current environmental consultant :
Consultant Company Name: Braun Intertec Corporation
Consultant Name Derek Schilling Phone: 952-995-2674
Cleanup - 5
45
FY 17
17. What contaminants have been identified at the site?
The following is a summary of contaminants identified in soil at the Site: metals (lead and
arsenic) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and gasoline range organics (GRO) in
soil.
18. To qualify for cleanup funding, you must attach a copy of the RAP and written approval of
your Response Action Plan from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
A Construction Contingency Plan (CCP) was submitted to the MPCA and approved on May
19, 2016. See Attachment 4 for a copy of the CPP and Attachment 5 for a copy of the
MPCA CCP Approval letter. Attachment 5 includes a copy of a MPCA Letter, dated
October 13, 2016, confirming that the CCP meets the MPCA’s definition of a RAP. The
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Report, Phase II ESA Report and Additional
Environmental Investigation Results report are included as Attachments 6, 7, and 8,
respectively.
19. What is the likely source of contamination?
Contaminated fill soil from past land use operations is the likely the source of
contamination in soil.
20. Summary of Contamination Information:
A. Provide a concise description of the identified contamination and proposed RAP. The
description should include the occurrence of the contamination (i.e., are there distinct
areas of contamination or is contamination widely disseminated across the site? Is the
contamination at the surface or at depth?
Past industrial uses of the Site, including a foundry, furniture and barrel manufacturers,
and railroad tracks on and adjacent to the Site, have resulted in impacts to the fill soil. In
addition, t wo underground storage tank (UST) releases have been reported at the Site.
Although the files regarding these releases have been closed by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA), residual contamination may remain.
The investigations conducted prior to the start of redevelopment identified fill soil that
exhibited low level concentrations of metals (specifically lead and arsenic), gasoline
range organics (GRO), diesel range organics (DRO) and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). However, lead and arsenic at concentrations greater than their
respective Residential Soil Reference Values (SRV) and screening Soil Leaching Values
(SLV) and GRO at a concentration greater than the MPCA Criteria for off-Site reuse of
soil as “unregulated fill” have been identified at the Site. In addition, various areas of fill
soil exhibited Photoionization Detector (PID) readings of 26 to 122 parts per million
(ppm) and faint petroleum odors, and low levels of DRO, and GRO were identified in
these areas of the Site.
Cleanup - 6
46
FY 17
Fill soil appears to be present across the majority of the Site at depths ranging from 2.5
feet to 14 feet below ground surface (bgs). Although the previous investigations
identified limited amounts of debris in the fill soil; during the start of redevelopment
activities in September 2016, the contaminated fill soil containing significant amounts of
debris, which included slag, foundry sands, coal, railroad ties, concrete, metal, brick and
lumber, was encountered and required implementation of the MPCA-approved CCP (see
Attachment 4).
In summary, we completed several borings and test pits across the Site as part of the
investigations prior to the start of redevelopment; but unfortunately these locations just
missed several significant pockets of impacted fill soil with debris that did not show up
during the investigations. As excavations activities, including topsoil clearing, were
progressing across the Site, the areas of impacted fill soil with debris and elevated PID
readings above the action level (200 ppm as defined in the CCP) was identified requiring
the fill material to be disposed at the landfill. Note that the MPCA petroleum brownfields
program does allow soil management decisions to be made based on PID readings.
As part of redevelopment activities at the Site, subsurface construction activities required
excavation of contaminated fill soil with debris. Based on construction plans and the
completed work, approximately 20,000 cubic yards (CY) of potentially contaminated fill
soil with debris has been excavated from the Site. Full time environmental monitoring
was conducted during all excavation activities in order to ensure that all encountered
contaminated fill soil was identified, segregated, and properly disposed.
B. Complete the following table for soil contamination (be sure to include areas of
contamination that have been identified at the site but will not be treated or removed as
part of the approved RAP):
General
contaminant type
(i.e., DRO, VOCs,
metals, etc.)
Total volume of
identified
contaminated
soil (cyds)
Total volume of
identified
contaminated
soil to be
remediated
(cyds)
Remedy RAP Cleanup
Goal (i.e.,
residential SRVs,
industrial SRVs,
etc.)
Metals (Arsenic
and Lead), PAHs,
GRO
20,000 cyds 20,000 cyds Removal and
landfill disposal
Residential SRVs
C. Complete the following table for groundwater contamination. If no or limited
groundwater investigation has been conducted, indicate this. Also indicate if a
groundwater investigation was conducted but no contamination was detected.
Cleanup - 7
47
FY 17
General
contaminant type
(i.e., DRO, VOCs,
metals, etc.
Affected aquifer
(i.e., water table,
deeper aquifers)
Approximate dimensions
of contaminant plume on-
site. Specify if the plume
extends off-site.
Remedy
None
D. List all compounds comprising the identified release in soil and the corresponding
average and maximum concentration for each compound. Also include petroleum in the
table. If distinct areas of contamination are present at the site, please describe
separately. (NOTE: It is acceptable to provide an overview with estimated average and
maximum concentrations if the amount of analytical data is overwhelming.) (Note: for
PAHs, please provide individual compound concentrations or Benzo(a)pyrene
equivalent concentrations for the carcinogenic PAH compounds.)
Compound Tier I
SRV (residential)
Average
Concentration
Maximum
Concentration
Lead 300 mg/kg 36.3 mg/kg 321 mg/kg
Arsenic 9 mg/kg 4.2 mg/kg 9.5 mg/kg
GRO 100 mg/kg 43.1 mg/kg 105 mg/kg
PAHs 2.0 mg/kg 1.2 mg/kg 1.2 mg/kg
E. Please do the same as in D. for groundwater.
Compound HRL Average
Concentration
Maximum
Concentration
Not Applicable
F. If groundwater at the site is contaminated, note the geologic makeup of the affected
aquifer (sand/gravel, till, lacustrine clay, etc.), and the estimated average linear velocity
(be sure to indicate how this number was determined).
Not Applicable
G. Briefly describe possible exposure scenarios posed by identified contamination at the
site (i.e., ingestion or human contact with contaminated soil, consumption of
contaminated groundwater, ecological impacts, etc.), and nearby receptors that could be
affected by contaminants migrating from site (high value wetland/creeks/rivers, etc.).
Cleanup - 8
48
FY 17
The primary exposure risk posed by the contaminated soil at the Site is ingestion/dermal
contact by untrained construction workers that will be conducting Site redevelopment
activities and/or future occupants.
H. If you are requesting costs for soil vapor mitigation, you must have supporting data.
Not Applicable
III. COST ANALYSIS: INVESTIGATION, CLEANUP AND PROJECT COST BUDGET
21. What is the total of all eligible investigation, cleanup and project costs for the site?
$____________
22. How much grant funding are you requesting from DEED (cannot be more than 75% of the
cost listed in the question above)? $______________
23. Please fill out the following budget table to identify the investigation costs, cleanup costs
and project costs for the site as defined in the instruction section of this application. Attach
additional sheets if necessary.
BUDGET
Eligible Activities for Investigation
and RAP Development % Complete Date(s) Completed Total Cost
A. Investigation Costs Subtotal
Eligible Activities for Soil and
Groundwater Cleanup % Complete Date(s) Completed Total Cost
B. Cleanup Costs Subtotal
C. Total A & B, This is your total cleanup cost*
Cleanup - 9
49
FY 17
Other Project Activities Necessary to
Implement the RAP % Complete Date(s) Completed Total Cost
D. Project Cost Subtotal
E. Total A, B & D
24. What is the breakdown of sources for the above budget?
Amount Source Status (Committed, pending decision date)
_____________ DEED Submitted November 1, 2016 (pending)
_____________ ________________________ ___________________________
_____________ _________________________ ___________________________
_____________ _________________________ ____________________________
_____________ TOTAL (should equal Total in line E above)
*(12% of the above cleanup costs in line C must be paid with unrestricted funds, as defined on
page V; Please indicate which source(s) will contribute to the unrestricted match.)
25. Is all of the project’s financing in place? (i.e., cleanup, construction, operations)
All project financing, except for the unanticipated remediation cost, is in place.
26. If requesting project costs, please explain why these costs are necessary to remediate the
contamination.
We are not requesting project costs at this time.
27. If any of the activities listed above are partially or fully completed, how were those
activities financed?
The remediation activities were financed using the project redevelopment budget. However,
due to the cost of the unanticipated remediation, the project budget incurred a significant
impact.
If work has occurred, please submit the invoices for which you will be seeking
reimbursement.
Invoices for already incurred remediation costs will be provided under separate cover.
Cleanup - 10
50
FY 17
28. If you are requesting acquisition costs as match, and the amount for acquisition is different
from the appraised or assessed value, please explain why there is a difference.
ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES
29. Please indicate whether you have applied for or received all funds available to you from
other funding sources. If you applied for or received funds, please list the amount(s) below.
Source Requested or
received all funds
available (Y or N)?
Amount(s) requested
or received?
Date(s)
requested or
received?
Met Council N NA NA
County ERF Grant N NA NA
PetroFund N NA NA
ACRRA N NA NA
MPCA Funding N NA NA
EPA N NA NA
Other (Specify) N NA NA
COST RECOVERY
30. Has the site been identified as a state or federal Superfund site? ☐ Yes ☒ No
31. Based on question 18, are there any existing or former businesses or landowners who may
have caused or contributed to the contamination on the site? ☐ Yes ☒ No
If yes, who ? ______________________________________________________________
What is the status of the business (in operation, sold, closed, moved)? ________________
32. What efforts have been made to recover some or all of the cleanup costs from the party(ies)?
Not Applicable, the former property/business owners are no longer in operation.
There is a mechanism to recover costs from the responsible party if this grant receives
funding. See Minn. Stat. § 116J.557 for further details.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
33. Please submit a copy of the applicant’s most current audit, or financial statement if an audit
is not available. If this information is available electronically, you may submit the web
address in lieu of a paper copy.
The applicant is a single purpose entity that was formed with the intent to develop a multi-
tenant apartment community located at the Site. There are no previous financial statements
or audits.
Cleanup - 11
51
FY 17
34. Is there a possibility that the site will be cleaned up without DEED money? ☒ Yes ☐ No
Explain your answer to the question above.
The award of DEED money is a critical piece to the financial feasibility of the project.
Given the substantial unanticipated costs that have been incurred associated with the Site
clean-up, the applicant is forced to find other sources of funding to continue to make the
project feasible if it will not receive a DEED grant. The applicant would be set-back if no
DEED money was received, but the clean-up of the Site, that has already been completed,
was mandatory to complete the project.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AFTER CLEANUP
35. Describe in detail the Development Plan for the site after implementation of the RAP?
(Number of buildings or housing units, square footage, etc.).
36. Have all of the required local/city approvals necessary for this project to proceed been
obtained (planning commission, zoning, etc.) ☒ Yes ☐ No If not, what remains to be
done and what is the process for completing the process of obtaining approvals?
37. What is the estimated cost of the Development (construction costs not including the cleanup
costs)? $____________
Of these how much is public? $____________ private? $__________
38. Is all of the financing in place for the final development of the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No If yes,
attach evidence that funds for the project have been secured. If not, what is the process to
secure the funds and the timeline for securing them?
39. If the site will be redeveloped for residential use, provide the following data:
RENTAL:
Total number of units ______
Monthly rental cost per unit $____
Number of affordable units____
Level of affordability ______________
Construction cost per unit $______
OWNER OCCUPIED:
Total number of units ____
Cleanup - 12
52
FY 17
Purchase price per unit $______
Number of affordable units/homes ______
Level of affordability _______________
Construction cost per unit $______
40. Are you applying for HUD financing? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, have you received an
“Invitation to Apply” from HUD (attach a copy, if so). If not, where are you in the HUD
financing process?
PROPERTY TAXES
41. What are the property taxes on the site for the current year (prior to cleanup)? $______
42. What is the projected property tax on the site after redevelopment? $______
A. How were the figures in Questions 41 and 42 determined? _________________
B. Who determined them? _____________
Cleanup - 13
53
FY 17
JOB CREATION AND RETENTION
43. Project the number of new jobs created after cleanup and development of the site. (Jobs
that did not exist in Minnesota prior to development)
NEW JOBS TABLE
Position Title Total # of
Full-Time
Jobs
Total # of Part-
Time Jobs
Expected
Hiring Date
Total New Jobs: _________________FTEs
44. Project the number of retained jobs after cleanup and development of the site. (Jobs that
existed either on-site or elsewhere in Minnesota prior to development)
RETAINED JOBS TABLE
Position Title Total # of
Full-Time
Jobs
Total # of Part-
Time Jobs
Former
Location of
Retained Jobs
Total Retained Jobs: _________________FTEs
Cleanup - 14
54
FY 17
PROJECT SCHEDULE
45. Provide a detailed project schedule outlining the individual tasks and schedules of the overall project (for both cleanup and redevelopment
of the site). Indicate on this form the expected month and year of individual tasks involved in the project. At a minimum, time lines
should include response actions/cleanup activities, demolition, construction start and end date, and any other project activities.
Scheduled Tasks:
YEAR 2016 YEAR 2017 YEAR 201__
TASK Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
t
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
t
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
t
Oct
Nov
Dec
Clean Up X X
Overall Construction X X
Occupancy
Cleanup Completion date 10/14/2016
Construction Completion date ______/_______/____________
46. Please list any factors which would change or delay this schedule. Construction delays are associated with a wide variet y of factors
including weather or unforeseen existing conditions of the Site.
Cleanup - 15
55
FY 17
V. THIRD PARTY/COMPANY COMMITMENT INFORMATION
47. If there is a commitment from a third party to develop on the site after cleanup, please
complete the following:
Third Party/Company Name: Same as Developer/Owner
Contact Person: ______________________________
Title: _______________________________________
Phone Number (include area code): _______________
48. Do you have an executed development agreement? ☐ Yes ☐ No
49. Please attach a commitment letter from the developer or other commitment documentation,
such as a development agreement. (If you cannot obtain a commitment letter from the
developer, please explain.)
A copy of the Developer Commitment Letter is included as Attachment 9.
VI. PAYMENT INFORMATION
Most grant payments take place through electronic funds transfer (EFT). To ensure proper
payment, a Vendor Number assigned by Minnesota Management and Budget is required. Vendor
information is available at Vendor Resources.
Financial Contact Person: _______________________________
Telephone Number (include area code): _________________________
State of Minnesota Vendor Number (if known): _________________________________
If a Minnesota Vendor Number is not available, please supply:
Federal Employer Identification Number: ___________________________
Cleanup - 16
56
FY 17
VII. RESOLUTIONS
50. Resolutions are required to be adopted prior to submission of the application package. The
two required elements are:
1. A resolution from the governing body of the city where the project site is
located, which approves the application.
2. A resolution from the applicant committing the local match and authorizing
contract signatures. Note: Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 412.201, Statutory
Cities must authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute all contracts.
An applicant may either provide a separate resolution for each of the above, or combine
them into a single resolution, as long as they include the same elements.
Blank resolutions are included for your convenience. You may choose to reformat or
combine them, but make sure to include all of the statements that appear in our
examples.
A copy of the City Council Resolution is included as Attachment 10.
Cleanup - 17
57
AGENDA SECTION CONSENT ITEM
ITEM NO. 7H
MEETING DATE OCTOBER 24, 2016
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS – CITY COUNCIL
ITEM: Approval of a Grant Application to Met Council
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL:
BY/DATE: Keith M Dahl, October 19, 2016 BY/DATE:
BACKGROUND:
Hy-Vee has uncovered extensive contamination and hazardous materials throughout the Subject Property
after environmental investigations were conducted. Specifically, the environmental investigation identified
and quantified hazardous materials, which require proper removal and abatement prior to any demolition for
renovation. The environmental investigation identified the following contaminants: asbestos, lead, petroleum,
diesel range organics (DRO), tetrachloroethane, trichloroethylene, and other volatile organic compounds
(VOC). The estimated cost for abatement and contamination clean-up of the pollutants on the Subject
Property is $1.98 million, which strains the financial feasibility for Hy-Vee to locate within Columbia Heights
without any public financial assistance. Thus, in conjunction with Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance
from the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (EDA), City Staff have also been working with
Hy-Vee on applying for contamination cleanup grants offered through the Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development (DEED) and the Metropolitan Council (Met Council).
The grant application before Council this evening for approval is through the Met Council. Met Council has
various contamination clean-up grants that offer funding for the redevelopment of polluted and
underproductive sites. To be eligible for many of these grants, a site must reduce the potential threat to the
public’s health, create employment opportunities, and increase the tax base of a municipality. The deadline
for these grants is November 1, 2016. City Staff and Hy-Vee will submit the grant applications, if approved,
requesting a total amount of $1.98 million for the abatement and contamination clean-up of the Subject
Property. City Staff anticipates funding from grants will be awarded in January 2017, however it is unknown
the actual amount that will be awarded to the Subject Property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adopting Resolution 2016-98, a resolution authorizing the approval of a grant application to
the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Tax Base Revitalization Account.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
Motion: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2016-98, there being ample copies available to the public.
Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 2016-98, a resolution authorizing the approval of a grant application to the
Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Tax Base Revitalization Account.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 2016-98 (2 Pages)
2. Draft Grant Application (18 Pages)
City of Columbia Heights – CC Letter 58
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-98
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES TAX BASE REVITILIZATION ACCOUNT.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council (Council) for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota (City) as follows:
WHEREAS that the City is a participant in the Livable Communities Act’s Local Housing Incentives Account
Program for 2016 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to make an application
to apply for funds under the Tax Base Revitalization Account; and
WHEREAS that the City has identified a contamination cleanup project within the City that meets the Tax Base
Revitalization Account’s purposes and criteria and are consistent with and promote the purposes of the
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the policies of the Metropolitan Council’s adopted metropolitan
development guide; and
WHEREAS that the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project
and grant administration; and
WHEREAS that the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the
contract grant agreement; and
WHEREAS that the City finds that the required contamination cleanup will not occur through private or other
public investment within the reasonably foreseeable future without Tax Base Revitalization Account grant
funding; and
WHEREAS that the City represents that it has undertaken reasonable and good faith efforts to procure funding
for the activities for which Livable Communities Act Tax Base Revitalization Account funding is sought but was
not able to find or secure from other sources funding that is necessary for cleanup completion and states that
this representation is based on the following reasons and supporting facts:
• Due to the extent of asbestos, lead, petroleum, diesel range organics (DRO), tetrachloroethane,
trichloroethylene, and other volatile organic compounds (VOC) of the contamination cleanup project,
redevelopment of the property is highly unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future without financial
assistance; and
• The asbestos abatement of the contamination cleanup project does not qualify for Contamination
Cleanup Grant Programs through the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the City Manager to submit an application for
Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization Account grant funds and, if the City is awarded a Tax Base
Revitalization Account grant project for this project, the City will be the grantee and agrees to act as legal
sponsor to administer and be responsible for grant funds expended for the project contained in the Tax Base
Revitalization grant application submitted on November 1, 2016.
Resolution 2016-98 59
City of Columbia Heights – EDA Resolution Page 2
Passed this _________ day of ______________________, 2016
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Gary L. Peterson, President
Attest:
Katie Bruno, Council Secretary/City Clerk
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
AGENDA SECTION
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER
ITEM: Adopt Resolution 16-95, Adopting Optional Appendices of the State Fire Code
DEPARTMENT: Fire CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL:
BY/DATE: Gary Gorman / October 24, 2016 BY/DATE:
BACKGROUND: The State of Minnesota adopted a new State Fire Code on May 2, 2016. City Code
automatically adopts the most recent addition of the State Fire Code. The Minnesota State Fire Code has
optional appendices that can be adopted by individual municipalities for their use. The adoptable optional
appendices are:
Appendix A Board of Appeals
Appendix B Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings
Appendix C Fire Hydrant Locations and Distributions
Appendix D Fire Apparatus Access Roads
Appendix F Hazard Rankings
Appendix H Hazardous Materials Management Plan & Inventory Statement
Appendix I Fire Protection Systems
Appendix J Building Information Sign
Appendix K Fire and Barbecues on Balconies or Patios
Appendix L Emergency Responder Radio Coverage
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on our research of these appendices and their relevance for use in the City
of Columbia Heights it is proposed to adopt appendices D, I, J, and K.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2016-95, there being ample copies available to the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2016-95, adopting optional appendices of the Minnesota State Fire Code.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution 2016-95
Council Letter for Resolution 2016-95
Consent
7I
October 24, 2016
79
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-95
A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota,
Whereas, on May 2, 2016 the State of Minnesota Adopted a new Minnesota State Fire Code with optional
appendices, and
Whereas, Chapter 8, Article IV of the Columbia Heights City Code automatically adopts the most recent edition
of the Minnesota State Fire Code and allows for the adoption of optional appendices through Council
Resolution, and
Whereas, the adoptable Optional Appendices are:
Appendix A Board of Appeals
Appendix B Fire-flow Requirements for Buildings
Appendix C Fire Hydrant Locations and Distribution
Appendix D Fire Apparatus Access Roads
Appendix F Hazard Ranking
Appendix H Hazardous Materials Management Plan &Inventory Statement
Appendix I Fire Protection Systems
Appendix J Building Information Sign
Appendix K Fire & Barbecues on Balconies or Patios
Appendix L Emergency Responder Radio Coverage
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
The Fire Department has researched all of the adoptable optional appendices and has found that Appendices’
D, I, J, and K are relevant to the City of Columbia Heights and are hereby adopted.
This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its enactment by the City Council
ORDER OF COUNCIL
Passed this _________ day of ______________________, 2016
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Gary L. Peterson, Mayor
Attest:
Katie Bruno, City Clerk/Council Secretary
RESOLUTION NO 2016-95 80
81
AGENDA SECTION CONSENT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE OCTOBER 24, 2016
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER
ITEM: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION OF
THE CIRCLE TERRACE PARK MULTI PURPOSE BUILDING
DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL:
BY/Date: Kevin Hansen / October 20, 2016 BY/Date:
BACKGROUND: In 2015 the Master Plan for LaBelle Park was modified by expanding the park
and adding two lots to the north of the existing play lot. The plan updates the play lot and
includes a multi-purpose community building on the two additional lots.
At the August 2016 council meeting, new equipment was approved that includes all the play
elements of the plan including a swing set, a small playset with slides, the engineered wood
fiber surfacing, matching benches and trash can, and a basketball hoop for the sport court.
ANALYSIS/CONCLUSIONS: Staff sent out a request to the two landscape architectural firms
with the most recent experience in the City for architectural proposals on the multi-purpose
building. Two proposals were received with the following costs:
Proposal Fees
ISG $25,500*
Stantec $26,400*
*Plus reimbursables.
Funding for the project shall come from a CDBG grant ($236,771) and the Park Development
Fund (38,750). Interior furnishing and treatments shall be provided by the Police Forfeiture
Fund.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Move to enter into an agreement for the design and
construction administration of the Circle Terrace Park multi-purpose building with the
consulting engineering firm of ISG based upon their qualified, responsible proposal for a cost
not-to-exceed $25,500 appropriated from Fund 412-51609-3050.
ATTACHMENT(S): Site Layout
7K
82
CIRCLE TERRACE
BENCHMARK HYD.
TNFH 255.89
5" THICK CONCRETE PAVEMENT
(TYP), SEE DETAIL _____
4' HIGH BLACK VINYL-COATED CHAINLINK
FENCING (TYP), SEE DETAIL _____
4' HIGH BLACK VINYL-COATED CHAINLINK
FENCING (TYP), SEE DETAIL _____
SPORTS COURT, SEE
DETAIL _____
SECURITY LIGHT, SEE
DETAIL _____
BENCH SEATING (TYP),
SEE DETAIL _____
5" THICK CONCRETE PAVING WITH
INTEGRAL CURB (INTEGRAL CURB
AROUND PLAY CONTAINER ONLY)
(TYP), SEE DETAIL _____
STREET LIGHT (CITY STANDARD)
(TYP), SEE DETAIL ______
BY OWNER
PLAY EQUIPMENT AS SUPPLIED
BY_____________
BY OWNER
PLAY CONTAINER SAFETY
SURFACING (TYP)
STREET LIGHT (CITY STANDARD)
(TYP), SEE DETAIL ______
PARKING BAY STRIPING AND H.C.
PARKING STALL SYMBOL (TYP)
S212 CURB AND GUTTER
(TYP), SEE DETAIL _____
S412 CURB AND GUTTER
(TYP), SEE DETAIL _____
S412 CURB AND GUTTER
(TYP), SEE DETAIL _____
BITUMINOUS PAVING (TYP),
SEE DETAIL _____
BY OWNER
PARK SIGN (CITY STANDARD)
SWING BENCH, SEE DETAIL ____)
FUTURE COMMUNITY BUILDING
AND OPEN AIR PICNIC SHELTER
BY OWNER
H.C. PARKING SIGN
3' HIGH BLACK VINYL-COATED CHAINLINK
FENCING (TYP), SEE DETAIL _____
3' HIGH BLACK VINYL-COATED CHAINLINK
FENCING (TYP), SEE DETAIL _____
LEGEND
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
CONCRETE WALKWAY PAVEMENT
CONCRETE MAINTENANCE BAND
SAWCUT & REMOVE CURB & GUTTER
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
BLACK VINYL-COATED
CHAINLINK FENCING
PROJECT
19031 L2-LAYOUT
NO DATE DESCRIPTION
REVISION SCHEDULE
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE
CLIENT PROJECT NO.
REVIEWED BY
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, INC.
AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED
WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.
TITLE
SHEET
CITY OF COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS
CIRCLE TERRACE
PARK REMODEL
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS MINNESOTA
SITE LAYOUT
PLAN
L2.11
059984
AMP
AMP
----
16-19031
--/--/--
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A
DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA.
LIC. NO.DATE
LIC. NO.DATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A
DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE
OF MINNESOTA.
Andrew T. Brandel
47,078
Amanda M. Prosser
46,766
B.M. ELEVATION=255.89
TNFH WEST SIDE CIRCLE TERRACE BLVD.
APPROXIMATELY 70 FT NORTH OF SOUTH
PROJECT PROPERTY LINE
3020100
Scale: 1" = 10'-0"
83
84
AGENDA SECTION CONSENT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE OCTOBER 24, 2016
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER
ITEM: Rental Housing Licenses
DEPARTMENT: Fire CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL:
BY/DATE: Gary Gorman BY/DATE:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of attached list of rental housing applications.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
Move to approve the items listed for rental housing license applications for October 24, 2016, in that they
have met the requirements of the Property Maintenance Code.
ATTACHMENTS:
List of Rental Licenses to Approve (TIFF)
7M
85
86
87
88
89
90
AGENDA SECTION CONSENT AGENDA
ITEM NO. 7N
MEETING DATE OCT 24, 2016
, 2016
, 2015CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER
Document1
ITEM: LICENSE AGENDA
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL:
BY/Date: Oct 19, 2016 BY/Date:
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Attached is the business license agenda for the October 24, 2016 Council meeting. This agenda
consists of applications for 2016 Contractor Licenses and Business Licenses for 2016-17.
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 October 24, 2016 as
presented.
91
City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2
TO CITY COUNCIL October 24, 2016
*Signed Waiver Form Accompanied Application
CONTRACTOR’S LICENSES-2016
BLDG *Royalton Heating & Cool 4120 85th Ave No, Brk Park $60
*US Patio Systems 218 N River Ridge Cir, Burnsville $60
All Metro Excavating 337 County Rd 81, Osseo $60
Dailey Construction Inc 3017 Southbrook Dr, Bloomington $60
*M & D Pl & Htg 11050 26th St NE, St Michael $60
BUSINESS LICENSES
2017 FUEL DISPENSING:
*Columbia Hts Rental 3901 Central Ave $50
*Northern Tier/SA 5000 Central Ave $160
2017 VEHICLE RENTAL:
*Columbia Hts. Rental 3901 Central Ave $50
2017 GAMES OF SKILL:
*American Amusements/Lieberman 2100 W 96th St, Bloomington $90
For El Tequila and Jeff’s Bobby & Steve’s
2016 & 2017 MASSAGE:
Business: *Tuina Massage Inc. dba Sunny Massage 5019 University Ave $584
Individual: *Julia Wang owner/therapist at 5019 University Ave $120
92
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
COUNCIL MEETING OF: October 24, 2016 .
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Motion: Move that in accordance with Minnesota Statute 412.271, subd. 8 the City Council has reviewed the list of claims paid covering check
number 163180 through 163359 in the amount of $ 963,877.42.
These checks have been examined and found to be legal charges against the CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, and are herby, recommende d
for payment.
Agenda Section Consent
Item No. 7O
Meeting Date October 24, 2016
93
ACS FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
10/20/2016 12:18:54 Check History GL050S-V08.02 COVERPAGE
GL540R
*******************************************************************************
* * * * L E A N N O * * * *
* * * * L E A N N O * * * *
* * * * L E A N N O * * * *
* * * * L E A N N O * * * *
*******************************************************************************
Report Selection:
Optional Report Title.......10/24/2016 COUNCIL LISTING
INCLUSIONS:
Fund & Account. thru
Check Date.................. thru
Source Codes................ thru
Journal Entry Dates......... thru
Journal Entry Ids........... thru
Check Number................ 163180 thru 163359
Project..................... thru
Vendor...................... thru
Invoice..................... thru
Purchase Order.............. thru
Bank........................ thru
Voucher .................... thru
Released Date............... thru
Cleared Date................ thru
Include Exp/Rev Closing Entries N
Create Excel file & Download N
Run Instructions:
Jobq Banner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI Lines CPI CP SP RT
L LEANNO 01 PRT04 Y S 6 066 10 Y Y
94
ACS FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
10/20/2016 12:18:54 Check History GL540R-V08.02 PAGE 1
10/24/2016 COUNCIL LISTING
BANK VENDOR CHECK# CHECK DATE AMOUNT
BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT
AARP 163180 10/12/16 240.00
ACE HARDWARE 163181 10/12/16 44.21
AMERICAN BOTTLING COMPAN 163182 10/12/16 275.74
ANOKA COUNTY LICENSE CEN 163183 10/12/16 60.00
ANOKA CTY - CENTRAL COMM 163184 10/12/16 969.65
ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 163185 10/12/16 1,243.15
ASPEN MILLS, INC. 163186 10/12/16 449.50
ASSURED SECURITY INC 163187 10/12/16 523.00
BAUHAUS BREW LABS LLC 163188 10/12/16 285.00
BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY 163189 10/12/16 436.08
BELLBOY CORPORATION 163190 10/12/16 1,239.62
BERNICK'S WINE 163191 10/12/16 2,626.05
BOOM ISLAND BREWING COMP 163192 10/12/16 82.00
BRAUN INTERTEC CORP INC 163193 10/12/16 4,954.60
BRAY/LIZ 163194 10/12/16 26.00
BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN W& 163195 10/12/16 33,494.40
BRP VETERINARY MINNESOTA 163196 10/12/16 525.00
BUSINESS JOURNAL/THE 163197 10/12/16 105.00
CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES L 163198 10/12/16 8,166.35
CENTURYLINK 163199 10/12/16 178.62
CHANKASKA CRK RANCH&WINE 163200 10/12/16 332.64
COMCAST 163201 10/12/16 1,915.00
COMMERCIAL STEAM TEAM 163202 10/12/16 2,933.96
CREATE CONSTRUCTION LLC 163203 10/12/16 21,511.25
CRYSTAL SPRINGS ICE LLC 163204 10/12/16 896.75
DU ALL SERVICE CONTRACTO 163205 10/12/16 574.38
EMBROIDERY & MORE 163206 10/12/16 47.50
FIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALTI 163207 10/12/16 143.50
G & K SERVICES INC 163208 10/12/16 19.72
GENUINE PARTS/NAPA AUTO 163209 10/12/16 137.46
GPRS 163210 10/12/16 100.00
GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA DI 163211 10/12/16 842.28
G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS USA 163212 10/12/16 184.10
HANSON/ERIC 163213 10/12/16 51.14
HEINRICH ENVELOPE CORP 163214 10/12/16 388.50
HERRINGER/GERRY 163215 10/12/16 70.00
HOHENSTEINS INC 163216 10/12/16 2,193.44
HOPKINS MEDICAL PRODUCTS 163217 10/12/16 138.50
HOTSY EQUIPMENT OF MINN 163218 10/12/16 310.36
HUBER/KATHY 163219 10/12/16 207.79
INDEED BREWING COMPANY L 163220 10/12/16 622.20
INNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTN 163221 10/12/16 79.83
INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRON AS 163222 10/12/16 2,069.27
J & R LARSON GROUNDS MAI 163223 10/12/16 3,500.00
J H LARSON ELECTRIC COMP 163224 10/12/16 341.03
JEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY 163225 10/12/16 8,157.20
JJ TAYLOR DIST OF MN 163226 10/12/16 11,103.09
95
ACS FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
10/20/2016 12:18:54 Check History GL540R-V08.02 PAGE 2
10/24/2016 COUNCIL LISTING
BANK VENDOR CHECK# CHECK DATE AMOUNT
BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT
JOHNSON BROS. LIQUOR CO. 163227 10/12/16 30,862.87
KENNEDY & GRAVEN 163228 10/12/16 2,784.37
LEE/JOHN 163229 10/12/16 500.00
MAC QUEEN EQUIPMENT CO. 163230 10/12/16 673.05
MARCO, INC 163231 10/12/16 52.09
MCDONALD DISTRIBUTING CO 163232 10/12/16 488.20
MENARDS CASHWAY LUMBER-F 163233 10/12/16 428.12
METRO COUNCIL ENVIROMENT 163234 10/12/16 398,544.30
METRO UTILITIES INC 163235 10/12/16 10,781.00
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WAS 163236 10/12/16 81,196.67
MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT 163237 10/12/16 121,829.44
MINNESOTA PREMIER PUBLCT 163238 10/12/16 1,050.00
MN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATIO 163239 10/12/16 55.00
MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUS 163240 10/12/16 5,979.72
NORTHEASTER 163241 10/12/16 530.00
OFFICE DEPOT 163242 10/12/16 388.11
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 163243 10/12/16 10,439.78
PIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO. 163244 10/12/16 322.60
POINT EMBLEMS 163245 10/12/16 332.50
POPP.COM INC 163246 10/12/16 543.38
PREMIUM WATERS INC 163247 10/12/16 20.50
PRO GRAPHICS 163248 10/12/16 50.00
RAPIT PRINTING - NEW BRI 163249 10/12/16 438.14
RED BULL DISTRIBUTION CO 163250 10/12/16 170.00
RODDY/NITA 163251 10/12/16 65.00
RODRIGUEZ PEREZ/PEDRO 163252 10/12/16 500.00
SBSI INC 163253 10/12/16 120.00
SCHWAAB INC 163254 10/12/16 126.80
SETPOINT SYSTEMS CORPORA 163255 10/12/16 202.00
SHI INC 163256 10/12/16 389.00
SOUKUP/WILLIAM 163257 10/12/16 518.00
SOUTHERN GLAZER'S 163258 10/12/16 13,289.09
STREICHER'S GUN'S INC/DO 163259 10/12/16 596.00
SZUREK/MARLAINE 163260 10/12/16 140.00
TASER INTERNATIONAL INC 163261 10/12/16 102.11
TKO WINES INC 163262 10/12/16 116.00
TRANSACT TECHNOLOGIES 163263 10/12/16 238.67
TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN 163264 10/12/16 237.00
TWIN CITIES JUNK HAULING 163265 10/12/16 258.00
TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC I 163266 10/12/16 75.00
UNITED RENTALS 163267 10/12/16 1,647.42
VERIZON WIRELESS 163268 10/12/16 1,197.20
WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 163269 10/12/16 30.25
XCEL ENERGY (N S P) 163270 10/12/16 8.72
ZENTELLA/NAYELY 163271 10/12/16 489.31
ZIEGLER INC 163272 10/12/16 1,545.32
4IMPRINT.COM 163273 10/12/16 298.42
96
ACS FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
10/20/2016 12:18:54 Check History GL540R-V08.02 PAGE 3
10/24/2016 COUNCIL LISTING
BANK VENDOR CHECK# CHECK DATE AMOUNT
BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT
ACE HARDWARE 163274 10/19/16 34.87
AID ELECTRIC SERVICE INC 163275 10/19/16 2,584.82
AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASS 163276 10/19/16 191.00
AMERIPRIDE LINEN INC 163277 10/19/16 395.83
ANOKA COUNTY 163278 10/19/16 112.50
ANOKA COUNTY LIBRARY 163279 10/19/16 131.45
ANOKA COUNTY TREASURER 163280 10/19/16 315.62
ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 163281 10/19/16 1,575.00
ASPEN MILLS, INC. 163282 10/19/16 206.55
BAKER & TAYLOR 163283 10/19/16 3,144.47
BARNA GUZY & STEFFEN LTD 163284 10/19/16 14,127.00
BAUHAUS BREW LABS LLC 163285 10/19/16 188.00
BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY 163286 10/19/16 702.24
BELLBOY CORPORATION 163287 10/19/16 2,295.00
BERNICK'S WINE 163288 10/19/16 2,315.90
BOURGEOIS/KELLI 163289 10/19/16 904.77
BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN BE 163290 10/19/16 11,245.66
BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN W& 163291 10/19/16 24,788.69
BUESGENS/CONNIE 163292 10/19/16 22.00
BUILDING FASTENERS INC 163293 10/19/16 19.43
BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPRE 163294 10/19/16 630.00
CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES L 163295 10/19/16 6,514.14
CENGAGE LEARNING INC 163296 10/19/16 247.41
CENTER POINT ENERGY 163297 10/19/16 47.55
CENTURYLINK 163298 10/19/16 45.69
CHAMBERLAIN OIL COMPANY 163299 10/19/16 1,086.00
COMMERCIAL ASPHALT 163300 10/19/16 5,433.41
CUMMINS N POWER, LLC 163301 10/19/16 428.50
DAKOTA COUNTY LIBRARY 163302 10/19/16 28.00
DALCO ENTERPRISES INC 163303 10/19/16 333.37
DELEGARD TOOL CO INC 163304 10/19/16 161.96
DEMCO, INC. 163305 10/19/16 137.91
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAIN 163306 10/19/16 681.47
FERGUSON WATERWORKS INC 163307 10/19/16 1,558.97
FLEETPRIDE INC 163308 10/19/16 61.67
FOLEY/BARBARA 163309 10/19/16 73.76
G & K SERVICES INC 163310 10/19/16 386.82
GENUINE PARTS/NAPA AUTO 163311 10/19/16 96.47
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL IN 163312 10/19/16 249.75
GROVE NURSERY 163313 10/19/16 271.55
G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS USA 163314 10/19/16 110.46
HOHENSTEINS INC 163315 10/19/16 3,203.80
INDEED BREWING COMPANY L 163316 10/19/16 427.00
INTELLITECH INDUSTRIES I 163317 10/19/16 1,275.00
INTN'L ASSOC PROPERTY&EV 163318 10/19/16 350.00
JANWAY 163319 10/19/16 625.00
JJ TAYLOR DIST OF MN 163320 10/19/16 15,949.08
97
ACS FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
10/20/2016 12:18:54 Check History GL540R-V08.02 PAGE 4
10/24/2016 COUNCIL LISTING
BANK VENDOR CHECK# CHECK DATE AMOUNT
BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT
JOHNSON BROS. LIQUOR CO. 163321 10/19/16 19,855.18
K & S ENGRAVING LLC 163322 10/19/16 104.50
LAKE SUPERIOR COLLEGE 163323 10/19/16 600.00
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS 163324 10/19/16 1,000.00
LIBRARY STORE INC 163325 10/19/16 159.50
LIFT PRO 163326 10/19/16 45.03
LOFFLER COMPANIES INC 163327 10/19/16 809.79
MAYO CLINIC HEALTH LETTE 163328 10/19/16 31.52
MCDONALD DISTRIBUTING CO 163329 10/19/16 1,148.00
MEDTOX LABORATORIES, INC 163330 10/19/16 92.32
MENARDS CASHWAY LUMBER-F 163331 10/19/16 94.76
MIDWAY FORD 163332 10/19/16 266.03
MIDWEST ASPHALT CO. 163333 10/19/16 856.58
MINNESOTA CLE 163334 10/19/16 695.00
MINNESOTA LIBRARY ASSOC. 163335 10/19/16 496.00
MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATIO 163336 10/19/16 331.85
MN EQUIPMENT SOLUTIONS I 163337 10/19/16 20.38
MN RURAL WATER ASSOC 163338 10/19/16 250.00
NYSTROM PUBLISHING COMPA 163339 10/19/16 2,725.00
OFFICE DEPOT 163340 10/19/16 408.07
OFFICE DEPOT 163341 10/19/16 51.24
PAUSTIS & SONS WINE COMP 163342 10/19/16 566.75
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 163343 10/19/16 4,567.41
PONCE PARRA/BENITA 163344 10/19/16 390.22
PREMIUM WATERS INC 163345 10/19/16 94.40
ROYAL TIRE 163346 10/19/16 987.44
SAUMWEBER/CHRISTIAN 163347 10/19/16 199.41
SCOTT/LAWRENCE L. 163348 10/19/16 106.87
SOUTHERN GLAZER'S 163349 10/19/16 4,512.90
SPOK INC 163350 10/19/16 42.45
STAPLES ADVANTAGE 163351 10/19/16 76.10
TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN 163352 10/19/16 99.00
UNIQUE MANAGEMENT SERVIC 163353 10/19/16 44.75
UNITED RENTALS 163354 10/19/16 1,234.40
VERIZON WIRELESS 163355 10/19/16 60.06
VINOCOPIA INC 163356 10/19/16 4,487.13
WINE MERCHANTS 163357 10/19/16 2,516.57
WITT/JOHN 163358 10/19/16 659.43
XCEL ENERGY (N S P) 163359 10/19/16 2,031.83
963,877.42
98
ACS FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
10/20/2016 12:18:54 Check History GL540R-V08.02 PAGE 5
10/24/2016 COUNCIL LISTING
BANK VENDOR CHECK# CHECK DATE AMOUNT
REPORT TOTALS: 963,877.42
RECORDS PRINTED - 000983
99
ACS FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
10/20/2016 12:18:54 Check History GL060S-V08.02 RECAPPAGE
GL540R
FUND RECAP:
FUND DESCRIPTION DISBURSEMENTS
---- ----------------------------
101 GENERAL 35,870.71
201 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS 417.97
204 EDA ADMINISTRATION 295.39
212 STATE AID MAINTENANCE 41.78
225 CABLE TELEVISION 530.95
240 LIBRARY 6,977.80
371 TIF T4: KMART/CENTRAL AVE 1,563.52
376 TIF DISTRICTS A3/C7/C8 1,182.85
412 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PARKS 141.64
415 CAPITAL IMPRVMT - PIR PROJ 24,430.23
420 CAP IMPROVEMENT-DEVELOPMENT 2,107.27
439 FIRE CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 7,225.00
450 CAPITAL BLDG - LIBRARY 4,474.85
601 WATER UTILITY 123,681.42
602 SEWER UTILITY 81,376.70
603 REFUSE FUND 2,751.88
604 STORM SEWER UTILITY 3,738.31
609 LIQUOR 230,069.07
651 WATER CONSTRUCTION FUND 23,309.76
701 CENTRAL GARAGE 6,776.06
705 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 51.14
720 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 162.78
880 PERMIT SURCHARGE 404,773.18
883 CONTRIBUTED PROJECTS-OTHER 927.16
884 INSURANCE 1,000.00
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 963,877.42
BANK RECAP:
BANK NAME DISBURSEMENTS
---- ----------------------------
BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT 963,877.42
TOTAL ALL BANKS 963,877.42
100
AGENDA SECTION PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM NO. 8A
MEETING DATE OCTOBER 24, 2016
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER
ITEM: Adopt Resolution For Abatement
DEPARTMENT: Fire CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL:
BY/DATE: Gary Gorman BY/DATE:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Declaration of a nuisance and abatement of violations within the City of Columbia Heights is requested
regarding properties at:
2016-91 – 4309 Main Street NE
for failure to meet the requirements of the Property Maintenance Code.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
Move to close the public hearing and to waive the reading of Resolution Number 2016-91, there being
ample copies available to the public.
Move to adopt Resolution Number 2016-91, being 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
properties pursuant to City Code section 8.206.
ATTACHMENTS:
2016-91 Council Res-Dec of Nuis-4309 Main St
101
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-91
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 Julio Medina (Hereinafter "Owner of Record").
Whereas, the owner of record is the legal owner of the real property located at 4309 Main 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 September 22, 2016.
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 23, 2016, an inspection was conducted on the property listed above. Inspectors found
violations. A compliance order was sent via regular mail to the owner at the address.
2.That on September 22, 2016, inspectors re-inspected the property listed above. Inspectors noted that
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 October 13, 2016, inspectors re-inspected the property and found that 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:
A. Repair/replace all broken windows.
B. Secure windows to prevent entry.
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 4309 Main 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.
102
City of Columbia Heights - Council Resolution Page 2
ORDER OF COUNCIL
1. The property located at 4309 Main 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 ______________________, 2016
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Gary L. Peterson, Mayor
Attest:
Katie Bruno, City Clerk/Council Secretary
103
AGENDA SECTION PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM NO. 8B
MEETING DATE OCTOBER 24, 2016
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS – CITY COUNCIL
ITEM: Establishment of the Central Valu Center TIF District
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL:
BY/DATE: Keith M Dahl, October 17, 2016 BY/DATE:
BACKGROUND:
Hy-Vee, Inc. (Hy-Vee) has an option agreement with Brixmor to acquire the Central Valu Center located on a
10.14 acre sit at 4300 Central Avenue NE (Subject Property). Built in 1962; the Central Valu Center is a 140,281
square foot shopping center that currently is predominantly vacant. Roughly, less than one third of the
shopping center is occupied by tenants, which include Ace Hardware, Dollar Tree, and Meineke Automotive.
Hy-Vee originally desired to buy-out all the tenants’ lease agreements in an effort to acquire the entire
property for redevelopment; however, after unsuccessful negotiations to relocate the tenants, Hy-Vee
determined the only possible development option was to renovate the structurally substandard building. The
proposed renovation approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) on September 6, 2016 aligns the
structure with the same design palette and style already constructed at other Hy-Vee grocery stores across the
metropolitan region.
In addition to an increased total project cost associated with renovations, Hy-Vee has uncovered extensive
contamination and hazardous materials throughout the interior of the structure and in the soil underneath the
structure on the Subject Property. The purpose of conducting environmental investigations is to meet
property demolition guidelines as set forth by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). Specifically, the environmental investigation identified and
quantified hazardous materials, which require proper removal and abatement prior to any demolition for
renovation. The environmental investigation identified the following contaminants: asbestos, lead, petroleum,
diesel range organics (DRO), tetrachloroethane, trichloroethylene, and other volatile organic compounds
(VOC). The estimated cost for abatement and contamination clean-up of the pollutants on the Subject
Property is $1.98 million, which strains the financial feasibility for Hy-Vee to locate within Columbia Heights
without any public financial assistance. Thus, Hy-Vee has requested Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance
from the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (EDA) to offset a portion of the unexpected
costs associated with the renovations of the Subject Property.
TIF is a public financial assistance method used by many cities, which uses a portion of the future tax revenue
from a specific area to promote development through subsidizing qualified development costs incurred from
redevelopment within that specific area. When a TIF district is created, the current value of all the taxable
property within the district is frozen at the current base value. Over the life span of the TIF district, the
County, City and School District collect taxes from the frozen base value. Meanwhile, the development in the
TIF district increases the value of the property within the district. The tax collected from the increase in
property value is the “tax increment” revenue that reimburses the qualified development costs from
redevelopment.
Upon receiving the request from Hy-Vee for TIF assistance, City Staff and Ehlers, the EDA’s financial
consultant, conducted analyses to determine the true extent to which TIF assistance from the EDA would be
necessary to make the project financially feasible. At that time, City Staff authorized LHB Architects to formally
City of Columbia Heights – CC Letter 104
City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2
conduct an analysis of the Subject Property to determine if the Central Valu Center TIF District meets the
statutory requirements for a Redevelopment TIF District. The work conducted by LHB Architects was financed
entirely by Hy-Vee. The findings of the report and qualifications are contained in the attached TIF Plan.
Originally, Hy-Vee requested TIF assistance in the amount of $1.74 million over the course of a 26 year period.
Under the TIF Act, the duration of a Redevelopment TIF District cannot exceed a total of 26 years of tax
increment. Neither City Staff nor Ehlers determined that a 26 year TIF district period would be necessary for
Hy-Vee’s project to become financially feasible or in the best interest for the City. Based on the analyses
conducted, City Staff and Ehlers are in consensus support that TIF assistance in the amount of $1,100,000
generated over a 12 year period is substantially sufficient for Hy-Vee’s project. In conjunction with TIF
assistance from the EDA, City Staff have also been working with Hy-Vee on applying for contamination cleanup
grants offered through the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) and
the Metropolitan Council (Met Council).
DEED and Met Council have various contamination clean-up grants that offer funding for the redevelopment
of polluted and underproductive sites. To be eligible for many of these grants, a site must reduce the potential
threat to the public’s health, create employment opportunities, and increase the tax base of a municipality.
The deadline for these grants is November 1, 2016. City Staff and Hy-Vee will submit grant applications
requesting a total amount of $1.98 million for the abatement and contamination clean-up of the Subject
Property. City Staff anticipates funding from grants will be awarded in January 2017, however it is unknown
the actual amount that will be awarded to the Subject Property or if an award will be given. City Staff is
confident that TIF assistance in the amount of $1,100,000 generated over a 12 year perio d plus the potential
funds from grants will generate the estimated $1.98 million from the costs associated with the unexpected
abatement and contamination cleanup on the Subject Property.
Since the EDA and Council previously established a redevelopment project designated as the Downtown
Central Business District (CBD) revitalization plan, a modification to the Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan for
the CBD Redevelopment Project and establishment of the Central Valu Center TIF District needs to be
approved by the EDA and the Council. The proposed TIF Plan would provide reimbursement to Hy-Vee in the
form of “pay-as-you -go” for a portion of the project. The term “pay-as-you-go” refers to Hy-Vee paying for the
costs of the project up-front with the promise from the EDA to reimburse the qualified development costs
during the term of the TIF district.
The EDA is the authority authorized to exercise TIF powers, however the EDA may not exercise any TIF powers
without the prior approval of the City Council (Council). The EDA scheduled a special meeting on October 24,
2016 to consider the modification to the Downtown CBD Revitalization Plan for the CBD Redevelopment
Project, the establishment of the Central Valu Center TIF District, the Contract for Private Redevelopment by
and between the EDA and Hy-Vee, and an interfund loan contingent of the Council approving the TIF Plan.
On September 12, 2016, the Council scheduled a public hearing to approve the TIF plan for the modification
and establishment of the proposed TIF district. Before or at the time of approval by Council for a TIF district,
the Council shall make certain findings pursuant to Minnesota State Statue 469.175. One specific finding
requires that P&Z determines the proposed TIF District conforms to the general plans for the development
and redevelopment of the City. On October 4, 2016, the P&Z adopted Resolution 2016-PZ05, a resolution
confirming that the Central Valu Center TIF District conforms to the general plans for the development and the
redevelopment of the City. For the consideration of the Council this evening is a resolution approving the
proposed Central Valu Center TIF Plan and a resolution authorizing an interfund loan. 105
City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adopting Resolution 2016-97, a resolution authorizing a modification to the Redevelopment
Plan for the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project; and Establishing the Central Valu Center Tax
Increment Financing District Therein and Adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor; and
Staff recommends adopting Resolution 2016-100, a resolution authorizing internal loan for advance of public
redevelopment costs in connection with Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
Motion: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2016-97, there being ample copies available to the public.
Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 2016-97, a resolution authorizing a modification to the Redevelopment
Plan for the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project; and Establishing the Central Valu Center Tax
Increment Financing District Therein and Adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor.
Motion: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2016-100, there being ample copies available to the public.
Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 2016-100, a resolution authorizing internal loan for advance of public
redevelopment costs in connection with Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 2016-97 (5 Page)
2. Resolution 2016-100 (2 Pages)
3. Central Valu Center TIF Plan (86 Pages)
4. Property Account Summary (2 Pages)
106
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
ANOKA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-97
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN CENTRAL BUSINESS REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT; AND ESTABLISHING THE CENTRAL VALU CENTER TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Columbia Heights,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals
1.01. The Board of Commissioners of the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
(the "EDA") has heretofore established the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project (the
“Project”) and adopted the Redevelopment Plan therefor. It has been proposed by the EDA and the City
that the City adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Project (the "Redevelopment Plan
Modification") and establish the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District (the "District")
therein and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan
Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans"); all pursuant to and in
conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082 and Sections
469.174 to 469.1794, all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Plans, and presented for
the Council's consideration.
1.02. The EDA and City have investigated the facts relating to the Plans and hav e caused the
Plans to be prepared.
1.03. The EDA and City have performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to
the establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plans, including, but not
limited to, notification of Anoka County and Independent School District No. 13 having taxing
jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of and written comment on the Plans
by the City Planning Commission, approval of the Plans by the EDA on October 24, 2017, and the
holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law.
1.04. Certain written reports (the ''Reports") relating to the Plans and to the activities
contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and consultants and submitted to the Council
and/or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Plans. The Reports, including the
redevelopment qualifications reports and planning documents, include data, information and/or
substantiation constituting or relating to the basis for the other findings and determinations made in this
resolution. The Council hereby confirms, ratifies and adopts the Reports, which are hereby incorporated
into and made as fully a part of this resolution to the same extent as if set forth in full herein.
1.05 The City is not modifying the boundaries of the Project, but is however, modifying the
Redevelopment Plan therefor.
Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Redevelopment Plan Modification.
107
2.01. The Council approves the Redevelopment Plan Modification, and specifically finds that:
(a) the land within the Project area would not be available for redevelopment without the financial aid to
be sought under this Redevelopment Plan; (b) the Redevelopment Plan, as modified, will afford
maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the
Project by private enterprise; and (c) that the Redevelopment Plan, as modified, conforms to the general
plan for the development of the City as a whole.
Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing
District
3.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is a "redevelopment
district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 10 of the Act.
3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed redevelopment would not occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of
the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be
less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after
subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District
permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan, that the Plans conform to the general plan for the
development or redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Plans will afford maximum
opportunity consistent with th e sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment
of the District by private enterprise.
3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings
stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing,
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3.04. The City elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the District in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, which means the fiscal disparities contribution
would be taken from inside the District.
Section 4. Public Purpose
4.01. The adoption of the Plans conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will
help fulfill a need to develop an area of the City which is already built up, to provide employment
opportunities, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the State and thereby serves
a public purpose. For the reasons described in Exhibit A, the City believes these benefits directly derive
from the tax increment assistance provided under the TIF Plan. A private developer will receive only the
assistance needed to make this development financially feasible. As such, any private benefits received
by a developer are incidental and do not outweigh the primary public benefits.
Section 5. Approval and Adoption of the Plans
5.01. The Plans, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation the
findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified, established, and
adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Columbia Heights Community Development
Director.
108
5.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to
proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council
for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose.
5.03 The Auditor of Anoka County is requested to certify the ori ginal net tax capacity of the
District, as described in the Plans, and to certify in each year thereafter the amount by which the original
net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the EDA is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit
this request to the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with a
list of all properties within the District, for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months
immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution.
5.04. The EDA is further authorized and directed to file a copy of the Plans with the
Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council member
_________________, and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
Dated: October 24, 2016
ATTEST:
__________________________________ _____________________________________
Mayor City Clerk
(Seal)
109
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. ___________
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan)
for Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District (District), as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows:
1. Finding that Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as
defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10.
The District consists of one parcel, with plans to redevelop the area for commercial/industrial purposes.
At least 70 percent of the area of the parcel in the District is occupied by buildings, streets, utilities,
paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures . The District contains one building, which has
been analyzed by the City’s consultant, LHB, and found to be structurally substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance.
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be
expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that
the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the
proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the
maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported by the
fact that the redevelopment proposed in the TIF Plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment, but
due to the high costs of acquisition, tenant relocation, environmental remediation and renovation of a
structurally substandard building, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax
increment financing. The developer was asked for and provided a letter and a proforma as justification
that the developer would not have gone forward without tax increment assistance.
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the
proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the
maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan: This finding is justified on the grounds
that the cost of acquisition, tenant relocation and environmental remediation add to the total
redevelopment cost. Historically, these costs in this area have made redevelopment infeasible without
tax increment assistance. The site has been predominately vacant for the last few years. The City
reasonably determines that no other significant renovation/redevelopment/reuse of similar scope is
anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development.
Therefore, t he City concludes as follows:
a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will increase
without the use of tax increment financing is $0.
b. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $8,859,100.
c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the district
permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $3,678,030.
110
d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council
finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than
$3,181,070 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment
assistance.
3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District conforms to the general plan for the development or
redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to the general
development plan of the City.
4. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound
needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Downtown Central Business
Redevelopment Project by private enterprise.
The project to be assisted by the District will result in increased employment in the City and the State of
Minnesota, the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high
quality development to the City.
111
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-100
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
AUTHORIZING INTERNAL LOAN FOR
ADVANCE OF PUBLIC REDEVELOPMENT COSTS
IN CONNECTION WITH CENTRAL VALU CENTER
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA (the “City”) AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Background.
1.01. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended (the “TIF
Act”) the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) has established
the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF District”) within the Downtown
Central Business Redevelopment Project (the “Project ”).
1.02. The Authority may incur certain costs related to the TIF District (the “Qualified
Costs”), which costs may be financed on a temporary basis from available funds in the City’s
redevelopment fund, or from other Authority or City funds available for such purposes.
1.03. Under Section 469.178, Subdivision 7 of the TIF Act, the Authority and City are
authorized to advance or loan money from any fund from which such advances may be legally
made in order to finance expenditures that are eligible to be paid with tax increments under the TIF
Act.
1.04. On this date, the Authority has approved a resolution (the “Loan Resolution”)
authorizing an internal loan in the amount of $25,000 together with interest at the rate of 4.0% per
annum, and setting the terms for reimbursement of Qualified Costs incurred in connection with the
TIF District .
Section 2. Inter fund Loan Authorized.
2.01. The City approves the interfund loan described in the Loan Resolution, and
authorizes use of any unencumbered City funds available for such purposes under law as the
source of the funds for the loan.
2.02. The City Finance Director is authorized and directed to determine the fund(s) or
account(s) from which monies are drawn for the interfund loan, and to credit repayments under
the Loan Resolution to the relevant fund(s) or account(s).
2.03. City staff and officials are authorized and directed to execute any collateral
documents and take any other actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution.
Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution is effective upon the date of its approval.
488442v1 MNI CL205-65
112
Approved by the City Counc il of the City of Columbia Heights this 24th day of October,
2016.
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
488442v1 MNI CL205-65 2 113
As of October 17, 2016
Draft for Public Hearing
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project
and the
Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the establishment of
the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
(a redevelopment district)
within
the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
City of Columbia Heights
Anoka County
State of Minnesota
Public Hearing: October 24, 2016
Adopted:
Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com
114
Table of Contents
(for reference purposes only)
Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project ......................1-1
Foreword.............................................................1-1
Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District .....................2-1
Subsection 2-1.Foreword...............................................2-1
Subsection 2-2.Statutory Authority........................................2-1
Subsection 2-3.Statement of Objectives...................................2-1
Subsection 2-4.Redevelopment Plan Overview ..............................2-1
Subsection 2-5.Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired .2-2
Subsection 2-6.Classification of the District.................................2-2
Subsection 2-7.Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District ...........2-4
Subsection 2-8.Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ................2-4
Subsection 2-9.Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued ......................2-5
Subsection 2-10.Uses of Funds ...........................................2-6
Subsection 2-11.Fiscal Disparities Election..................................2-6
Subsection 2-12.Business Subsidies.......................................2-7
Subsection 2-13.County Road Costs .......................................2-8
Subsection 2-14.Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions.................2-8
Subsection 2-15.Supporting Documentation ................................2-10
Subsection 2-16.Definition of Tax Increment Revenues .......................2-10
Subsection 2-17.Modifications to the District................................2-11
Subsection 2-18.Administrative Expenses ..................................2-11
Subsection 2-19.Limitation of Increment...................................2-12
Subsection 2-20.Use of Tax Increment....................................2-13
Subsection 2-21.Excess Increments......................................2-13
Subsection 2-22.Requirements for Agreements with the Developer ..............2-14
Subsection 2-23.Assessment Agreements.................................2-14
Subsection 2-24.Administration of the District...............................2-14
Subsection 2-25.Annual Disclosure Requirements ...........................2-14
Subsection 2-26.Reasonable Expectations .................................2-14
Subsection 2-27.Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment.................2-15
Subsection 2-28.Summary..............................................2-16
Appendix A
Project Description......................................................A-1
Appendix B
Map of the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project and the District ......B-1
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District ............................C-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District........................................D-1
115
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form .......................................E-1
Appendix F
Redevelopment Qualifications for the District ..................................F-1
Appendix G
Findings Including But/For Qualifications.....................................G-1
116
Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project
Foreword
The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Central Business
Redevelopment Project. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in
the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project. Generally, the
substantive changes include the establishment of the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District.
For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Central Business
Redevelopment Project is recommended. It is available from the Community Development Director at the
City of Columbia Heights. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for
the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project.
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project 1-1
117
Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
Subsection 2-1.Foreword
The Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (the "EDA"), the City of Columbia Heights (the
"City"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), a redevelopment tax increment
financing district, located in the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project.
Subsection 2-2.Statutory Authority
Within the City, areas exist where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment
to occur. To this end, the EDA has certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ("M.S."), Sections
469.090 to 469.1082, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, inclusive, as amended
(the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing public costs related to this project.
This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant
information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Central Business
Redevelopment Project.
Subsection 2-3.Statement of Objectives
The District currently consists of one parcel of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District is
being created to facilitate the redevelopment of an existing, predominately vacant retail center into a 98,000
square foot grocery and 20,000 square foot retail or medical office space in the City. Please see Appendix
A for further District information. The EDA will be entering into an agreement with Hy-Vee Inc. and
development is likely to occur in early 2017. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives
outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project.
The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude
the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated
to occur over the life of the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project and the District.
Subsection 2-4.Redevelopment Plan Overview
1.Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by
the EDA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan.
2.Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3.Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary
legal requirements, the EDA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may
acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
4.The EDA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction,
relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District.
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2-1
118
Subsection 2-5.Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information
on the location of the District.
The EDA may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of way. Any
properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the EDA only in order to accomplish one or more of
the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets, utilities and facilities; carry
out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to accomplish the uses and objectives
set forth in this plan. The EDA may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase
from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken
only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. The EDA does not
currently intend to acquire the parcel comprising the District.
Subsection 2-6.Classification of the District
The EDA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with
M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a
redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below:
(a)"Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project,
or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more of the
following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists:
(1)parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent
of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance;
(2)The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently
used rail yards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way;
(3)tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities, as defined
in Section 115C, Subd. 15, if the tank facility:
(i)have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons;
(ii)are located adjacent to rail facilities; or
(iii)have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently
used; or
(4)a qualifying disaster area, as defined in Subd. 10b.
(b)For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in
structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and
ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions,
or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance.
(c)A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2-2
119
to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15
percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the
site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard
under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size,
type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or
other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without
an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal
prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the
property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable
to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that
owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion
that the building is structurally substandard.
(d)A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of the
finding under paragraph (a) or by the improvement described in paragraph (e) if all of the
following conditions are met:
(1) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building or met the requirements of paragraph
(e), as the case may be, within three years of the filing of the request for certification of the
parcel as part of the district with the county auditor;
(2) the substandard building or the improvements described in paragraph (e) were demolished
or removed by the authority or the demolition or removal was financed by the authority or
was done by a developer under a development agreement with the authority;
(3) the authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was
occupied by a structurally substandard building or met the requirement of paragraph (e) and
that after demolition and clearance the authority intended to include the parcel within a
district; and
(4) upon filing the request for certification of the tax capacity of the parcel as part of a district,
the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be
adjusted as provided by § 469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph (f).
(e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved
or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel
contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.
(f) For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a
redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire area of
the district must satisfy paragraph (a).
In meeting the statutory criteria the EDA and City rely on the following facts and findings:
•The District is a redevelopment district consisting of one parcel.
•An inventory shows that the parcel is occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots
or other similar structures.
•An inspection of the building located within the District finds that the building is structurally substandard
as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F).
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2-3
120
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that
qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111, 273.112, or 273.114 or Chapter 473H for taxes
payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District.
Subsection 2-7.Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration and first year of tax
increment of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b.,
the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA (a total of 26 years
of tax increment). The EDA elects to receive the first tax increment in 2019, which is no later than four years
following the year of approval of the District. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any
modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2044, or when
the TIF Plan is satisfied. The EDA reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date.
Subsection 2-8.Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity
(ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor
in 2016 for taxes payable 2017.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
in the payment year 2019) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of:
1.Change in tax exempt status of property;
2.Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3.Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4.Change in the use of the property and classification;
5.Change in state law governing class rates; or
6.Change in previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no
value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the EDA.
The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2017, assuming the
request for certification is made before June 30, 2017. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the
District appear in the table below.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated
Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment
Project, upon completion of the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues
as shown in the table below. The EDA requests 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for
repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2019. The Project
Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed.
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2-4
121
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC)$500,936
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC)$102,068
Fiscal Disparities Contribution $119,102
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)$279,766
Original Local Tax Rate 1.50371 Pay 2016
Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate)$420,687
Percent Retained by the EDA 100%
Tax capacity includes a 3% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in thischart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 25. The tax capacity of the District in year one isestimated to be $239,250.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the EDA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its
request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S.,
Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which
building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the
TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase
the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building
permit was issued.
The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and found that some building permits
have been issued in the past 18 months, but none that should increase the original tax capacity.
Subsection 2-9.Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued
The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax
increments. The EDA and City reserve the right to issue bonds or incur other indebtedness as a result of the
TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by a pay-as-you-go note
and/or interfund loan/transfer. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF
Plan Modification. This provision does not obligate the EDA or City to incur debt. The EDA or City will
issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City.
The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below:
SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL
Tax Increment $6,904,488
Interest $690,449
TOTAL $7,594,937
The EDA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments
from the District in a maximum principal amount of $4,679,208. Such bonds may be in the form of pay-as-
you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total
bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval.
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2-5
122
Subsection 2-10.Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the redevelopment of an existing,
predominately vacant retail center into a 98,000 square foot grocery and 20,000 square foot retail or medical
office space. The EDA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the
project(s) for certain District costs, as described. The EDA has studied the feasibility of the development or
redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or
redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost
of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is
outlined in the following table.
USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS TOTAL
Land/Building Acquisition $1,000,000
Site Improvements/Preparation $2,500,000
Utilities $100,000
Other Qualifying Improvements $388,759
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$690,449
PROJECT COST TOTAL $4,679,208
Interest $2,915,729
PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $7,594,937
The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total
projected tax increments for the District as shown in Subsection 2-9.
Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification
to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed,
without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant
to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the
District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the District but within
the boundaries of the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project, (including administrative costs,
which are considered to be spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this TIF
Plan.
Subsection 2-11.Fiscal Disparities Election
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the EDA may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal
disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (within the District) are
followed, the following method of computation shall apply:
(1)The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity
provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal
disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the
current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section
276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2-6
123
capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity
and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax
capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity
is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has
designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the
retained captured net tax capacity of the authority.
(2)The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the
net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The
local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity
of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by
the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate
to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority.
The EDA will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b.
According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3:
(c)The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or
(b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may
elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in
paragraph (b).
Subsection 2-12.Business Subsidies
Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered
a business subsidy:
(1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000;
(2)Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses,
such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria;
(3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a
public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at
the time the improvements are made;
(4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3;
(5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing
it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that
the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost;
(6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to
provide those services;
(7) Assistance for housing;
(8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing
hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23;
(9) Assistance for energy conservation;
(10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law;
(11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation;
(12) Benefits derived from regulation;
(13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions;
(14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and
bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2-7
124
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999;
(15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business;
(16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section
469.174, Subd. 19;
(17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation
is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value;
(18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally
technical nature;
(19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local
government agency;
(20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority;
(21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less;
(22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration; and
(23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to
valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100.
The EDA will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance
under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions.
Subsection 2-13.County Road Costs
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1a, the county board may require the EDA to pay for all or part of
the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in
the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road
improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years
under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan.
If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the EDA within forty-five days
of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the EDA and City and consultants, the proposed development
outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan was not
forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The EDA and City are aware that the county
could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing.
Subsection 2-14.Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF
Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the EDA has determined that such
development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the
fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as
follows if the "but for" test was not met:
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2-8
125
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
2015/Pay 2016
Total Net
Tax Capacity
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Upon Completion
Percent of CTC
to Entity Total
Anoka County 265,016,460 279,766 0.1056%
City of Columbia Heights 10,044,448 279,766 2.7853%
ISD No. 13 14,553,977 279,766 1.9223%
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
Pay 2016
Extension Rates
Percent
of Total CTC
Potential
Taxes
Anoka County 0.37992025.27%279,766 106,289
City of Columbia Heights 0.74841049.77%279,766 209,380
ISD No. 13 0.29442019.58%279,766 82,369
Other 0.080960 5.38%279,766 22,650
Total 1.503710100.00%420,687
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the actual Pay 2016 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based
on actual Pay 2016 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2017 rates and figures, which
were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b):
(1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be
generated over the life of the District is $6,904,488;
(2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. An impact of the
District on police protection is not expected. The City Police Department does track all calls for
service by addresses and crimes. With any addition of new residents or businesses, police calls for
service will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional overall
demands to the call load. The City Police Department expects an increase in call types similar to
those generate from other similar developments in the area. However, the City does not expect that
the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new capital investment.
The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new
buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction.
The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The development is not
expected to significantly impact any traffic movements in the area. The current infrastructure for
sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be able to handle the additional volume generated from
the proposed development. Based on the development plans, there are no additional costs associated
with street maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks. However, lighting operating
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2-9
126
costs are yet to be determined. Sanitary sewer (SAC) and water (WAC) connection fees are yet to
be determined.
The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue
debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. It is not anticipated that there will be any
general obligation debt issued in relation to this project, therefore there will be no impact on the
City's ability to issue future debt or on the City's debt limit.
(3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated that the
amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district
levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions
remained the same, is $1,351,899;
(4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of
tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the
county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $1,744,453;
(5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any
standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and
impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional
information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax
increment financing plan.
No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed
development for the District have been received.
Subsection 2-15.Supporting Documentation
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and
description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd.
3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of
reports and studies on file at the City that support the EDA and City's findings:
•LHB Qualifications Report: September 2016.
•Retail Market and Sales Potential with Appendices: McComb Group, February 2015.
Subsection 2-16.Definition of Tax Increment Revenues
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing
district include all of the following potential revenue sources:
1.Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S.,
Section 469.177;
2.The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was
purchased by the authority with tax increments;
3.Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments;
4.Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments;
5.Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for
which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and
6.The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384.
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2-10
127
Subsection 2-17.Modifications to the District
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any:
1.Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the
requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e);
2.Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred;
3.A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF
Plan;
4.Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the EDA;
5.Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid
or financed with tax increment from the District; or
6.Designation of additional property to be acquired by the EDA.
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
of the original TIF Plan.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall not
be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county
auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that
the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10, must be documented in
writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is
elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2)(A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated
from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax
capacity or (B) the EDA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax
capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the
District.
The EDA must notify the County Auditor of any modification to the District. Modifications to the District
in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan.
Subsection 2-18.Administrative Expenses
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the
EDA or City, other than:
1.Amounts paid for the purchase of land;
2.Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and
engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the
District;
3.Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the
District;
4.Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or
5.Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance
costs described in clauses (1) to (3).
For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982,
and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond
counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2-11
128
469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative
expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures
authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause
(1), from the District, whichever is less.
For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to pay
any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment
expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd.
25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits
of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the
year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently 0.36
percent) of any increment distributed to the EDA or and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount deducted
to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated
to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of
examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually
by the Commissioner of Revenue.
Subsection 2-19.Limitation of Increment
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District
may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow
account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or
redemption date.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6:
if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation
or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a
street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water
systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district
by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing
plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original net tax
capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently
commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel
including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the
tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity
has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most
recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity
of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this
subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required
activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be
submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified
as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2-12
129
street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street,
and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street.
The EDA or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately October 2020 and
report such actions to the County Auditor.
Subsection 2-20.Use of Tax Increment
The EDA hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property
located in the District for the following purposes:
1.To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project;
2.To finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the the Downtown Central Business
Redevelopment Project pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082;
3.To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan;
4.To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4;
5.To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the
EDA or for the benefit of the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project by a developer;
6.To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing
the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and
7.To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on
the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152
through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other
purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4.
Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Anoka to the EDA for the Tax Increment Fund of
said District. The EDA will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified
in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and
relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds will be used for EDA
administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement activities outside the District.
Subsection 2-21.Excess Increments
Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the
following:
1.Prepay any outstanding bonds;
2.Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds;
3.Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or
4.Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in
proportion to their local tax rates.
The EDA must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after the end
of the year. In addition, the EDA may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the TIF
Plan in order to finance additional public costs in the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project
or the District.
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2-13
130
Subsection 2-22.Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
The EDA will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformity to the Redevelopment
Plan and to applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may
be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings,
landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any other drawings or narrative
deemed necessary by the EDA or City to demonstrate the conformity of the development to City plans and
ordinances. The EDA may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be
acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the EDA as a result of
acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments from
property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, the EDA
concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which provides
recourse for the EDA should the development or redevelopment not be completed.
Subsection 2-23.Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the EDA may enter into a written assessment agreement in
recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market value
of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement shall be
presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be
constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be
constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the
judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the minimum
market value agreement.
Subsection 2-24.Administration of the District
Administration of the District will be handled by the Community Development Director.
Subsection 2-25.Annual Disclosure Requirements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the EDA must undertake financial reporting for all tax
increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor on or
before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement shall be
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15.
If the EDA fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section
469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the Office of the State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to withhold the
distribution of tax increment from the District.
Subsection 2-26.Reasonable Expectations
As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated
development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the
reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected
to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value
estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax
increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said determination,
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2-14
131
reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon EDA
and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District. A comparative
analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax
increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix
D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated
subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the
use of tax increments.
Subsection 2-27.Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment
1.General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF
Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the
Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082. Tax
increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the
acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and
regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of
government or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues
derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure.
2.Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on
activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance
activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not
more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise,
on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced
bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they
were solely for activities outside of the District.
3.Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall
be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule
set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year
following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures
permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit
enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5.
4.Redevelopment District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a
redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation
of redevelopment and renewal and renovation districts under M.S., Section 469.176 Subd. 4j. These costs
include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or
improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary
to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures,
clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of
the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated
administrative expenses of the EDA, including the cost of preparation of the development action response
plan, may be included in the qualifying costs.
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2-15
132
Subsection 2-28.Summary
The Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance
the tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan
for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota
55113, telephone (651) 697-8500.
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District 2-16
133
Appendix A
Project Description
Hy-Vee intends to acquire the existing CenterValu Mall and demolish portions of the existing structure,
complete required environmental cleanup and then construct a 3,800 sq/ft addition for loading docks and
complete significant renovation of the remaining center into a 98,000 sq/ft grocery and 20,000 sq/ft retail
space to accommodate medical office and/or additional new retail. The EDA will be providing assistance in
the form of a pay-as-you-go TIF note.
Appendix A-1
134
Appendix B
Map of the Downtown Central Business Redevelopment Project and the District
Appendix B-1
135
CENTRAL VALU CENTER
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
DOWNTOWN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD)
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Downtown Central Business District (CBD) Redevelopment Project
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
136
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcel listed below.
Parcel Numbers Address Owner
35-30-24-11-0083 4300 CENTRAL AVE NEBRE NON-CORE 2 OWNER B
LLC
Appendix C-1
137
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District
Appendix D-1
138
9/
2
2
/
2
0
1
6
Base Value Assumptions - Page 1
Hy
V
e
e
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
-
3
%
I
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
Gr
o
c
e
r
y
A
n
c
h
o
r
e
d
R
e
t
a
i
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
AS
S
U
M
P
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
R
A
T
E
S
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
T
y
p
e
:
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
N
a
m
e
/
N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Co
u
n
t
y
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
#
:
Ex
e
m
p
t
C
l
a
s
s
R
a
t
e
(
E
x
e
m
p
t
)
0.00%
Fi
r
s
t
Y
e
a
r
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
I
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
V
a
l
u
e
20
1
7
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
C
l
a
s
s
R
a
t
e
(
C
/
I
P
r
e
f
.
)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
-
S
p
e
c
i
f
y
N
o
.
Y
e
a
r
s
R
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
Fi
r
s
t
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
1.50%
In
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
-
E
v
e
r
y
Y
e
a
r
:
3.
0
0
%
Ov
e
r
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
2.00%
In
t
e
r
e
s
t
R
a
t
e
:
4.
0
0
%
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
C
l
a
s
s
R
a
t
e
(
C
/
I
)
2.00%
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
V
a
l
u
e
D
a
t
e
:
1-
A
u
g
-
1
7
Re
n
t
a
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
C
l
a
s
s
R
a
t
e
(
R
e
n
t
a
l
)
1.25%
Fi
r
s
t
P
e
r
i
o
d
E
n
d
i
n
g
1-
F
e
b
-
1
8
Aff
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
R
e
n
t
a
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
C
l
a
s
s
R
a
t
e
(
A
f
f
.
R
e
n
t
a
l
)
Ta
x
Y
e
a
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
a
s
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
:
Pa
y
2
0
1
7
Fi
r
s
t
$
1
1
5
,
0
0
0
0
.
7
5
%
Ca
s
h
f
l
o
w
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
F
i
r
s
t
T
a
x
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
F
o
r
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
1
9
O
v
e
r
$
1
1
5
,
0
0
0
0
.
2
5
%
Ye
a
r
s
o
f
T
a
x
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
2
6
N
o
n
-
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(
N
o
n
-
H
R
e
s
.
1
U
n
i
t
)
Ass
u
m
e
s
L
a
s
t
Y
e
a
r
o
f
T
a
x
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
20
4
4
Fi
r
s
t
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
1.00%
Fi
s
c
a
l
D
i
s
p
a
r
i
t
i
e
s
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
[
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
(
A
)
,
I
n
s
i
d
e
(
B
)
,
o
r
N
A
]
In
s
i
d
e
(
B
)
Ov
e
r
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
1.25%
In
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
o
r
T
o
t
a
l
F
i
s
c
a
l
D
i
s
p
a
r
i
t
i
e
s
In
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
C
l
a
s
s
R
a
t
e
(
H
m
s
t
d
.
R
e
s
.
)
Fi
s
c
a
l
D
i
s
p
a
r
i
t
i
e
s
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
i
o
29
.
8
6
0
1
%
P
a
y
2
0
1
6
Fi
r
s
t
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
1.00%
Fi
s
c
a
l
D
i
s
p
a
r
i
t
i
e
s
M
e
t
r
o
-
W
i
d
e
T
a
x
R
a
t
e
15
0
.
2
6
2
0
%
P
a
y
2
0
1
6
Ov
e
r
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
1.25%
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
/
F
r
o
z
e
n
L
o
c
a
l
T
a
x
R
a
t
e
:
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
P
a
y
2
0
1
6
Agr
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
N
o
n
-
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
1.00%
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
L
o
c
a
l
T
a
x
R
a
t
e
:
(
U
s
e
l
e
s
s
e
r
o
f
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
o
r
M
a
x
.
)
1
5
0
.
3
7
1
%
P
a
y
2
0
1
6
St
a
t
e
-
w
i
d
e
T
a
x
R
a
t
e
(
C
o
m
m
.
/
I
n
d
.
o
n
l
y
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
t
o
t
a
l
t
a
x
e
s
)
4
8
.
6
4
1
0
%
P
a
y
2
0
1
6
Ma
r
k
e
t
V
a
l
u
e
T
a
x
R
a
t
e
(
U
s
e
d
f
o
r
t
o
t
a
l
t
a
x
e
s
)
0.
1
4
1
2
7
%
P
a
y
2
0
1
6
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
T
o
t
a
l
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Ta
x
Y
e
a
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
ClassAfter
La
n
d
Ma
r
k
e
t
M
a
r
k
e
t
O
f
V
a
l
u
e
U
s
e
d
O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
Ta
x
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
AfterConversion
Ma
p
#
P
I
D
Ow
n
e
r
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
M
a
r
k
e
t
V
a
l
u
e
V
a
l
u
e
Va
l
u
e
f
o
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
M
a
r
k
e
t
V
a
l
u
e
M
a
r
k
e
t
V
a
l
u
e
C
l
a
s
s
T
a
x
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
C
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
O
r
i
g
.
T
a
x
C
a
p
.
1
35
‐30
‐24
‐11
‐00
8
3
43
0
0
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
A
v
e
2
,
0
1
7
,
5
0
0
3
,
1
2
3
,
4
0
0
5
,
1
4
0
,
9
0
0
10
0
%
5
,
1
4
0
,
9
0
0
P
a
y
2
0
1
7
C
/
I
P
r
e
f
.
10
2
,
0
6
8
C/I Pref.102,068 1
2,
0
1
7
,
5
0
0
3
,
1
2
3
,
4
0
0
5
,
1
4
0
,
9
0
0
5,
1
4
0
,
9
0
0
1
0
2
,
0
6
8
102,068
No
t
e
:
1.
B
a
s
e
v
a
l
u
e
s
a
r
e
f
o
r
p
a
y
2
0
1
7
b
a
s
e
d
u
p
o
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
o
u
n
t
y
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
o
n
8
-
1
-
1
6
.
Ta
x
R
a
t
e
s
B
A
S
E
V
A
L
U
E
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
(
O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
T
a
x
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
)
Area/ Phase
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
E
h
l
e
r
s
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
O
n
l
y
N:
\
M
i
n
n
s
o
t
a
\
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
\
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
-
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
-
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
\
T
I
F
\
T
I
F
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
\
H
y
-
V
e
e
T
I
F
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
\
T
I
F
R
u
n
s
\
T
I
F
R
u
n
9
-
2
2
-
1
6
- FINAL FOR TIF PLAN.xls139
9/
2
2
/
2
0
1
6
Base Value Assumptions - Page 2
Hy
V
e
e
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
-
3
%
I
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
Gro
c
e
r
y
Anc
hor
e
d Ret
a
il
Cen
t
e
r
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
T
a
x
a
b
l
e
T
o
t
a
l
T
a
x
a
b
l
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
F
i
r
s
t
Y
e
a
r
Ma
r
k
e
t
V
a
l
u
e
M
a
r
k
e
t
V
a
l
u
e
T
o
t
a
l
Ma
r
k
e
t
Ta
x
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
T
a
x
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
F
u
l
l
T
a
x
e
s
Ar
e
a
/
P
h
a
s
e
N
e
w
U
s
e
P
e
r
S
q
.
F
t
.
/
U
n
i
t
P
e
r
S
q
.
F
t
.
/
U
n
i
t
S
q
.
F
t
.
/
U
n
i
t
s
Val
u
e
Cl
a
s
s
T
a
x
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
/
U
n
i
t
2
0
1
7
20
1
8
20192020Payable
Gr
o
c
e
r
y
92
92
1
3
0
,
4
5
5
1
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
C
/
I
P
r
e
f
.
2
3
9
,
2
5
0
2
1
0
0
%
10
0
%
100%100%2019
TO
T
A
L
12
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
23
9
,
2
5
0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
0
0
0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
I
n
d
.
13
0
,
4
5
5
1
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
23
9
,
2
5
0
No
t
e
:
1.
M
a
r
k
e
t
v
a
l
u
e
s
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
u
p
o
n
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
f
r
o
m
c
o
u
n
t
y
a
s
s
e
s
s
o
r
o
n
8
-
2
-
1
6
.
To
t
a
l
F
i
s
c
a
l
L
o
c
a
l
L
o
c
a
l
F
i
s
c
a
l
S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
d
e
M
a
r
k
e
t
Ta
x
D
i
s
p
a
r
i
t
i
e
s
T
a
x
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Di
s
p
a
r
i
t
i
e
s
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Val
u
e
To
t
a
l
T
a
x
e
s
P
e
r
Ne
w
U
s
e
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
Ta
x
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
Ta
x
e
s
Ta
x
e
s
Ta
x
e
s
Ta
x
e
s
Ta
x
e
s
S
q
.
F
t
.
/
U
n
i
t
Gr
o
c
e
r
y
23
9
,
2
5
0
7
1
,
4
4
0
1
6
7
,
8
1
0
2
5
2
,
3
3
7
1
0
7
,
3
4
8
1
1
6
,
3
7
4
16
,
9
5
2
4
9
3
,
0
1
1
3.
7
8
TO
T
A
L
2
3
9
,
2
5
0
7
1
,
4
4
0
1
6
7
,
8
1
0
2
5
2
,
3
3
7
1
0
7
,
3
4
8
1
1
6
,
3
7
4
16
,
9
5
2
4
9
3
,
0
1
1
No
t
e
:
1.
T
a
x
e
s
a
n
d
t
a
x
i
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
l
l
v
a
r
y
s
i
g
n
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
f
r
o
m
y
e
a
r
t
o
y
e
a
r
d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
u
p
o
n
v
a
l
u
e
s
,
r
a
t
e
s
,
s
t
a
t
e
l
a
w
,
f
i
s
c
a
l
d
i
s
p
a
r
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
w
h
i
c
h
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
p
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
.
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
T
a
x
e
s
49
3
,
0
1
1
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
M
a
r
k
e
t
V
a
l
u
e
-
E
s
t
.
5,
1
4
0
,
9
0
0
le
s
s
S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
d
e
T
a
x
e
s
(1
1
6
,
3
7
4
)
Ne
w
M
a
r
k
e
t
V
a
l
u
e
-
E
s
t
.
12
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
le
s
s
F
i
s
c
a
l
D
i
s
p
.
A
d
j
.
(1
0
7
,
3
4
8
)
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
6,
8
5
9
,
1
0
0
le
s
s
M
a
r
k
e
t
V
a
l
u
e
T
a
x
e
s
(1
6
,
9
5
2
)
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
V
a
l
u
e
o
f
T
a
x
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
3,
6
7
8
,
0
3
0
le
s
s
B
a
s
e
V
a
l
u
e
T
a
x
e
s
(1
0
7
,
6
5
1
)
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
3,
1
8
1
,
0
7
0
An
n
u
a
l
G
r
o
s
s
T
I
F
14
4
,
6
8
6
Va
l
u
e
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
o
c
c
u
r
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
T
a
x
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
:
3,
1
8
1
,
0
7
0
W
H
A
T
I
S
E
X
C
L
U
D
E
D
F
R
O
M
T
I
F
?
MA
R
K
E
T
V
A
L
U
E
B
U
T
/
F
O
R
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
TA
X
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
(
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
T
a
x
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
)
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
E
h
l
e
r
s
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
O
n
l
y
N:
\
M
i
n
n
s
o
t
a
\
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
\
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
-
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
-
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
\
T
I
F
\
T
I
F
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
\
H
y
-
V
e
e
T
I
F
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
\
T
I
F
R
u
n
s
\
T
I
F
R
u
n
9
-
2
2
-
1
6
- FINAL FOR TIF PLAN.xls140
9/
2
2
/
2
0
1
6
Tax Increment Cashflow - Page 3
Hy
V
e
e
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
-
3
%
I
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
Gr
o
c
e
r
y
A
n
c
h
o
r
e
d
R
e
t
a
i
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
TA
X
I
N
C
R
E
M
E
N
T
C
A
S
H
F
L
O
W
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
F
i
s
c
a
l
C
a
p
t
u
r
e
d
Lo
c
a
l
A
nn
u
a
l
S
e
m
i
-
A
n
n
u
a
l
S
t
a
t
e
A
d
m
i
n
.
S
e
m
i
-
A
n
n
u
a
l
S
e
m
i
-
A
n
n
u
a
l
P
E
R
I
O
D
%
o
f
T
a
x
Ta
x
D
i
s
p
a
r
i
t
i
e
s
T
a
x
Ta
x
G
r
o
s
s
T
a
x
G
r
o
s
s
T
a
x
A
u
d
i
t
o
r
at
Ne
t
T
a
x
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
E
N
D
I
N
G
T
a
x
P
a
y
m
e
n
t
OT
C
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
Ra
t
e
I
n
c
r
e
m
en
t
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
0
.
3
6
%
10
%
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
V
a
l
u
e
Y
r
s
.
Y
e
a
r
D
a
t
e
-
-
-
-
02/01/18
-
-
-
-
08/01/18
-
-
-
-
02/01/19
10
0
%
2
3
9
,
2
5
0
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(4
0
,
9
6
3
)
96
,
2
1
9
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
1
4
4
,
6
8
6
72
,
3
4
3
(2
6
0
)
(7
,
2
0
8
)
64
,
8
7
4
59
,
9
3
4
0.5201908/01/19
10
0
%
2
3
9
,
2
5
0
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(4
0
,
9
6
3
)
96
,
2
1
9
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
1
4
4
,
6
8
6
72
,
3
4
3
(2
6
0
)
(7
,
2
0
8
)
64
,
8
7
4
11
8
,
6
9
2
1201902/01/20
10
0
%
2
4
6
,
4
2
8
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(4
3
,
1
0
6
)
10
1
,
2
5
4
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
1
5
2
,
2
5
6
76
,
1
2
8
(2
7
4
)
(7
,
5
8
5
)
68
,
2
6
9
17
9
,
3
1
3
1.5202008/01/20
10
0
%
2
4
6
,
4
2
8
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(4
3
,
1
0
6
)
10
1
,
2
5
4
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
1
5
2
,
2
5
6
76
,
1
2
8
(2
7
4
)
(7
,
5
8
5
)
68
,
2
6
9
23
8
,
7
4
5
2202002/01/21
10
0
%
2
5
3
,
8
2
0
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(4
5
,
3
1
3
)
10
6
,
4
3
9
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
1
6
0
,
0
5
3
80
,
0
2
7
(2
8
8
)
(7
,
9
7
4
)
71
,
7
6
5
29
9
,
9
9
5
2.5202108/01/21
10
0
%
2
5
3
,
8
2
0
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(4
5
,
3
1
3
)
10
6
,
4
3
9
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
1
6
0
,
0
5
3
80
,
0
2
7
(2
8
8
)
(7
,
9
7
4
)
71
,
7
6
5
36
0
,
0
4
5
3202102/01/22
10
0
%
2
6
1
,
4
3
5
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(4
7
,
5
8
7
)
11
1
,
7
8
0
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
1
6
8
,
0
8
4
84
,
0
4
2
(3
0
3
)
(8
,
3
7
4
)
75
,
3
6
6
42
1
,
8
7
1
3.5202208/01/22
10
0
%
2
6
1
,
4
3
5
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(47
,
5
8
7
)
11
1
,
7
8
0
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
1
6
8
,
0
8
4
84
,
0
4
2
(3
0
3
)
(8
,
3
7
4
)
75
,
3
6
6
48
2
,
4
8
5
4202202/01/23
10
0
%
2
6
9
,
2
7
8
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(4
9
,
9
2
9
)
11
7
,
2
8
1
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
1
7
6
,
3
5
6
88
,
1
7
8
(3
1
7
)
(8
,
7
8
6
)
79
,
0
7
5
54
4
,
8
3
5
4.5202308/01/23
10
0
%
2
6
9
,
2
7
8
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(4
9
,
9
2
9
)
11
7
,
2
8
1
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
1
7
6
,
3
5
6
88
,
1
7
8
(3
1
7
)
(8
,
7
8
6
)
79
,
0
7
5
60
5
,
9
6
2
5202302/01/24
10
0
%
2
7
7
,
3
5
6
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(5
2
,
3
4
1
)
12
2
,
9
4
7
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
1
8
4
,
8
7
7
92
,
4
3
8
(3
3
3
)
(9
,
2
1
1
)
82
,
8
9
5
66
8
,
7
8
6
5.5202408/01/24
10
0
%
2
7
7
,
3
5
6
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(5
2
,
3
4
1
)
12
2
,
9
4
7
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
1
8
4
,
8
7
7
92
,
4
3
8
(3
3
3
)
(9
,
2
1
1
)
82
,
8
9
5
73
0
,
3
7
8
6202402/01/25
10
0
%
2
8
5
,
6
7
7
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(5
4
,
8
2
6
)
12
8
,
7
8
3
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
1
9
3
,
6
5
3
96
,
8
2
6
(3
4
9
)
(9
,
6
4
8
)
86
,
8
3
0
79
3
,
6
2
9
6.5202508/01/25
10
0
%
2
8
5
,
6
7
7
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(5
4
,
8
2
6
)
12
8
,
7
8
3
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
1
9
3
,
6
5
3
96
,
8
2
6
(3
4
9
)
(9
,
6
4
8
)
86
,
8
3
0
85
5
,
6
4
0
7202502/01/26
10
0
%
2
9
4
,
2
4
7
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(5
7
,
3
8
5
)
13
4
,
7
9
4
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
2
0
2
,
6
9
2
10
1
,
3
4
6
(3
6
5
)
(1
0
,
0
9
8
)
90
,
8
8
3
91
9
,
2
7
2
7.5202608/01/26
10
0
%
2
9
4
,
2
4
7
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(5
7
,
3
8
5
)
13
4
,
7
9
4
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
2
0
2
,
6
9
2
10
1
,
3
4
6
(3
6
5
)
(1
0
,
0
9
8
)
90
,
8
8
3
98
1
,
6
5
7
8202602/01/27
10
0
%
3
0
3
,
0
7
5
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(6
0
,
0
2
1
)
14
0
,
9
8
6
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
2
1
2
,
0
0
2
10
6
,
0
0
1
(3
8
2
)
(1
0
,
5
6
2
)
95
,
0
5
7
1,
0
4
5
,
6
2
8
8.5202708/01/27
10
0
%
3
0
3
,
0
7
5
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(6
0
,
0
2
1
)
14
0
,
9
8
6
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
2
1
2
,
0
0
2
10
6
,
0
0
1
(3
8
2
)
(1
0
,
5
6
2
)
95
,
0
5
7
1,
1
0
8
,
3
4
5
9202702/01/28
10
0
%
3
1
2
,
1
6
7
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(6
2
,
7
3
6
)
14
7
,
3
6
3
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
2
2
1
,
5
9
2
11
0
,
7
9
6
(3
9
9
)
(1
1
,
0
4
0
)
99
,
3
5
7
1,
1
7
2
,
6
1
3
9.5202808/01/28
10
0
%
3
1
2
,
1
6
7
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(6
2
,
7
3
6
)
14
7
,
3
6
3
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
2
2
1
,
5
9
2
11
0
,
7
9
6
(3
9
9
)
(1
1
,
0
4
0
)
99
,
3
5
7
1,
2
3
5
,
6
2
1
10202802/01/29
10
0
%
3
2
1
,
5
3
2
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(6
5
,
5
3
2
)
15
3
,
9
3
2
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
2
3
1
,
4
6
9
11
5
,
7
3
4
(4
1
7
)
(1
1
,
5
3
2
)
10
3
,
7
8
6
1,
3
0
0
,
1
4
7
10.5202908/01/29
10
0
%
3
2
1
,
5
3
2
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(6
5
,
5
3
2
)
15
3
,
9
3
2
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
2
3
1
,
4
6
9
11
5
,
7
3
4
(4
1
7
)
(1
1
,
5
3
2
)
10
3
,
7
8
6
1,
3
6
3
,
4
0
8
11202902/01/30
10
0
%
3
3
1
,
1
7
8
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(6
8
,
4
1
2
)
16
0
,
6
9
7
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
2
4
1
,
6
4
2
12
0
,
8
2
1
(4
3
5
)
(1
2
,
0
3
9
)
10
8
,
3
4
8
1,
4
2
8
,
1
5
4
11.5203008/01/30
10
0
%
3
3
1
,
1
7
8
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(6
8
,
4
1
2
)
16
0
,
6
9
7
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
2
4
1
,
6
4
2
12
0
,
8
2
1
(4
3
5
)
(1
2
,
0
3
9
)
10
8
,
3
4
8
1,
4
9
1
,
6
3
1
12203002/01/31
10
0
%
3
4
1
,
1
1
3
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(7
1
,
3
7
9
)
16
7
,
6
6
6
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
2
5
2
,
1
2
1
12
6
,
0
6
1
(4
5
4
)
(1
2
,
5
6
1
)
11
3
,
0
4
6
1,
5
5
6
,
5
6
1
12.5203108/01/31
10
0
%
3
4
1
,
1
1
3
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(7
1
,
3
7
9
)
16
7
,
6
6
6
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
2
5
2
,
1
2
1
12
6
,
0
6
1
(4
5
4
)
(1
2
,
5
6
1
)
11
3
,
0
4
6
1,
6
2
0
,
2
1
9
13203102/01/32
10
0
%
3
5
1
,
3
4
7
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(7
4
,
4
3
5
)
17
4
,
8
4
4
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
2
6
2
,
9
1
4
13
1
,
4
5
7
(4
7
3
)
(1
3
,
0
9
8
)
11
7
,
8
8
6
1,
6
8
5
,
3
0
0
13.5203208/01/32
10
0
%
3
5
1
,
3
4
7
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(7
4
,
4
3
5
)
17
4
,
8
4
4
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
2
6
2
,
9
1
4
13
1
,
4
5
7
(4
7
3
)
(1
3
,
0
9
8
)
11
7
,
8
8
6
1,
7
4
9
,
1
0
5
14203202/01/33
10
0
%
3
6
1
,
8
8
7
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(7
7
,
5
8
2
)
18
2
,
2
3
7
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
2
7
4
,
0
3
1
13
7
,
0
1
6
(4
9
3
)
(1
3
,
6
5
2
)
12
2
,
8
7
0
1,
8
1
4
,
3
0
4
14.5203308/01/33
10
0
%
3
6
1
,
8
8
7
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(7
7
,
5
8
2
)
18
2
,
2
3
7
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
2
7
4
,
0
3
1
13
7
,
0
1
6
(4
9
3
)
(1
3
,
6
5
2
)
12
2
,
8
7
0
1,
8
7
8
,
2
2
5
15203302/01/34
10
0
%
3
7
2
,
7
4
4
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(8
0
,
8
2
4
)
18
9
,
8
5
2
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
2
8
5
,
4
8
2
14
2
,
7
4
1
(5
1
4
)
(1
4
,
2
2
3
)
12
8
,
0
0
4
1,
9
4
3
,
5
1
1
15.5203408/01/34
10
0
%
3
7
2
,
7
4
4
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(8
0
,
8
2
4
)
18
9
,
8
5
2
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
2
8
5
,
4
8
2
14
2
,
7
4
1
(5
1
4
)
(1
4
,
2
2
3
)
12
8
,
0
0
4
2,
0
0
7
,
5
1
7
16203402/01/35
10
0
%
3
8
3
,
9
2
6
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(8
4
,
1
6
3
)
19
7
,
6
9
5
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
2
9
7
,
2
7
6
14
8
,
6
3
8
(5
3
5
)
(1
4
,
8
1
0
)
13
3
,
2
9
3
2,
0
7
2
,
8
6
0
16.5203508/01/35
10
0
%
3
8
3
,
9
2
6
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(8
4
,
1
6
3
)
19
7
,
6
9
5
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
2
9
7
,
2
7
6
14
8
,
6
3
8
(53
5
)
(1
4
,
8
1
0
)
13
3
,
2
9
3
2,
1
3
6
,
9
2
1
17203502/01/36
10
0
%
3
9
5
,
4
4
4
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(8
7
,
6
0
2
)
20
5
,
7
7
3
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
3
0
9
,
4
2
4
15
4
,
7
1
2
(5
5
7
)
(1
5
,
4
1
5
)
13
8
,
7
3
9
2,
2
0
2
,
2
9
4
17.5203608/01/36
10
0
%
3
9
5
,
4
4
4
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(8
7
,
6
0
2
)
20
5
,
7
7
3
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
3
0
9
,
4
2
4
15
4
,
7
1
2
(5
5
7
)
(1
5
,
4
1
5
)
13
8
,
7
3
9
2,
2
6
6
,
3
8
4
18203602/01/37
10
0
%
4
0
7
,
3
0
7
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(9
1
,
1
4
5
)
21
4
,
0
9
4
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
3
2
1
,
9
3
6
16
0
,
9
6
8
(5
7
9
)
(1
6
,
0
3
9
)
14
4
,
3
5
0
2,
3
3
1
,
7
5
9
18.5203708/01/37
10
0
%
4
0
7
,
3
0
7
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(9
1
,
1
4
5
)
21
4
,
0
9
4
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
3
2
1
,
9
3
6
16
0
,
9
6
8
(5
7
9
)
(1
6
,
0
3
9
)
14
4
,
3
5
0
2,
3
9
5
,
8
5
1
19203702/01/38
10
0
%
4
1
9
,
5
2
6
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(9
4
,
7
9
3
)
22
2
,
6
6
5
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
3
3
4
,
8
2
4
16
7
,
4
1
2
(6
0
3
)
(1
6
,
6
8
1
)
15
0
,
1
2
8
2,
4
6
1
,
2
0
3
19.5203808/01/38
10
0
%
4
1
9
,
5
2
6
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(9
4
,
7
9
3
)
22
2
,
6
6
5
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
3
3
4
,
8
2
4
16
7
,
4
1
2
(6
0
3
)
(1
6
,
6
8
1
)
15
0
,
1
2
8
2,
5
2
5
,
2
7
3
20203802/01/39
10
0
%
4
3
2
,
1
1
2
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(9
8
,
5
5
2
)
23
1
,
4
9
3
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
3
4
8
,
0
9
8
17
4
,
0
4
9
(6
2
7
)
(1
7
,
3
4
2
)
15
6
,
0
8
0
2,
5
9
0
,
5
7
7
20.5203908/01/39
10
0
%
4
3
2
,
1
1
2
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(9
8
,
5
5
2
)
23
1
,
4
9
3
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
3
4
8
,
0
9
8
17
4
,
0
4
9
(6
2
7
)
(1
7
,
3
4
2
)
15
6
,
0
8
0
2,
6
5
4
,
6
0
0
21203902/01/40
10
0
%
4
4
5
,
0
7
5
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(1
0
2
,
4
2
2
)
24
0
,
5
8
5
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
36
1
,
7
7
0
18
0
,
8
8
5
(6
5
1
)
(1
8
,
0
2
3
)
16
2
,
2
1
1
2,
7
1
9
,
8
3
4
21.5204008/01/40
10
0
%
4
4
5
,
0
7
5
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(1
0
2
,
4
2
2
)
24
0
,
5
8
5
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
3
6
1
,
7
7
0
18
0
,
8
8
5
(6
5
1
)
(1
8
,
0
2
3
)
16
2
,
2
1
1
2,
7
8
3
,
7
8
8
22204002/01/41
10
0
%
4
5
8
,
4
2
8
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(1
0
6
,
4
0
9
)
24
9
,
9
5
0
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
3
7
5
,
8
5
3
18
7
,
9
2
6
(6
7
7
)
(1
8
,
7
2
5
)
16
8
,
5
2
5
2,
8
4
8
,
9
3
0
22.5204108/01/41
10
0
%
4
5
8
,
4
2
8
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(1
0
6
,
4
0
9
)
24
9
,
9
5
0
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
3
7
5
,
8
5
3
18
7
,
9
2
6
(6
7
7
)
(1
8
,
7
2
5
)
16
8
,
5
2
5
2,
9
1
2
,
7
9
4
23204102/01/42
10
0
%
4
7
2
,
1
8
1
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(1
1
0
,
5
1
6
)
25
9
,
5
9
7
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
3
9
0
,
3
5
8
19
5
,
1
7
9
(7
0
3
)
(1
9
,
4
4
8
)
17
5
,
0
2
9
2,
9
7
7
,
8
2
2
23.5204208/01/42
10
0
%
4
7
2
,
1
8
1
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(1
1
0
,
5
1
6
)
25
9
,
5
9
7
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
3
9
0
,
3
5
8
19
5
,
1
7
9
(7
0
3
)
(1
9
,
4
4
8
)
17
5
,
0
2
9
3,
0
4
1
,
5
7
5
24204202/01/43
10
0
%
4
8
6
,
3
4
6
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(1
1
4
,
7
4
6
)
26
9
,
5
3
2
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
4
0
5
,
2
9
8
20
2
,
6
4
9
(7
3
0
)
(2
0
,
1
9
2
)
18
1
,
7
2
8
3,
1
0
6
,
4
7
0
24.5204308/01/43
10
0
%
4
8
6
,
3
4
6
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(1
1
4
,
7
4
6
)
26
9
,
5
3
2
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
4
0
5
,
2
9
8
20
2
,
6
4
9
(7
3
0
)
(2
0
,
1
9
2
)
18
1
,
7
2
8
3,
1
7
0
,
0
9
2
25204302/01/44
10
0
%
5
0
0
,
9
3
6
(1
0
2
,
0
6
8
)
(1
1
9
,
1
0
2
)
27
9
,
7
6
6
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
4
2
0
,
6
8
7
21
0
,
3
4
3
(7
5
7
)
(2
0
,
9
5
9
)
18
8
,
6
2
8
3,
2
3
4
,
8
3
6
25.5204408/01/44
10
0
%
5
0
0
,
9
3
6
(10
2
,
0
6
8
)
(1
1
9
,
1
0
2
)
27
9
,
7
6
6
15
0
.
3
7
1
%
4
2
0
,
6
8
7
21
0
,
3
4
3
(7
5
7
)
(2
0
,
9
5
9
)
18
8
,
6
2
8
3,
2
9
8
,
3
1
0
26204402/01/45
T
o
t
a
l
6,
9
2
9
,
4
3
3
(2
4
,
9
4
6
)
(6
9
0
,
4
4
9
)
6,
2
1
4
,
0
3
9
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
V
a
l
u
e
F
r
o
m
0
8
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
7
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
V
a
l
u
e
R
a
t
e
4
.
0
0
%
3,
6
7
8
,
0
3
0
(
1
3
,
2
4
1
)
(
3
6
6
,
4
7
9
)
3
,
2
9
8
,
3
1
0
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
E
h
l
e
r
s
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
O
n
l
y
N:
\
M
i
n
n
s
o
t
a
\
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
\
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
-
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
-
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
\
T
IF
\
T
I
F
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
\
H
y
-
V
e
e
T
I
F
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
\
T
I
F
R
u
n
s
\
T
I
F
R
u
n
9
-
2
2
-
1
6
- FINAL FOR TIF PLAN.xls141
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form
(Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development)
A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's
activity by April 1 of the following year.
Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at
http://www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm for information and forms.
Appendix E-1
142
Appendix F
Redevelopment Qualifications for the District
Appendix F-1
143
Report of Inspection Procedures and Results for
Determining Qualifications of a
Tax Increment Financing District as a Redevelopment District
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
September 30, 2016
Prepared For the
City of Columbia Heights
Prepared by:
LHB, Inc.
701 Washington Avenue North, Suite 200
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
LHB Project No. 160793
144
145
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793 Page 1 of 11 Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................ 2
Purpose of Evaluation ................................................................................ 2
Scope of Work ........................................................................................... 2
Conclusion ................................................................................................. 3
PART 2 – MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS ....... 3
A. Coverage Test ...................................................................................... 3
B. Condition of Buildings Test ................................................................... 4
C. Distribution of Substandard Buildings ................................................... 5
PART 3 – PROCEDURES FOLLOWED ......................................................................... 5
PART 4 – FINDINGS ...................................................................................................... 6
A. Coverage Test ...................................................................................... 6
B. Condition of Building Test ..................................................................... 7
1. Building Inspection .................................................................... 7
2. Replacement Cost ..................................................................... 7
3. Code Deficiencies ..................................................................... 7
4. System Condition Deficiencies .................................................. 8
C. Distribution of Substandard Structures ................................................. 9
PART 5 - TEAM CREDENTIALS .................................................................................. 10
APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
APPENDIX B Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Reports
APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photographs
146
147
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793 Page 2 of 11 Final Report
PART 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF EVALUATION
LHB was hired by the City of Columbia Heights to inspect and evaluate the properties within a Tax
Increment Financing Redevelopment District (“TIF District”) proposed to be established by the City.
The proposed TIF District is bound by 44th Avenue Northeast, Central Avenue and 43rd Avenue
Northeast (Diagram 1). The purpose of LHB’s work is to determine whether the proposed TIF
District meets the statutory requirements for coverage, and whether one (1) building on one (1) parcel,
located within the proposed TIF District, meet the qualifications required for a Redevelopment
District.
Diagram 1 – Proposed TIF District
SCOPE OF WORK
The proposed TIF District consists of one (1) parcel with one (1) building. The building was inspected
on September 16, 2016. A Building Code and Condition Deficiency Report for the building that was
inspected is located in Appendix B.
148
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793 Page 3 of 11 Final Report
CONCLUSION
After inspecting and evaluating the properties within the proposed TIF District and applying current
statutory criteria for a Redevelopment District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10,
it is our professional opinion that the proposed TIF District qualifies as a Redevelopment District
because:
• The proposed TIF District has a coverage calculation of 100 percent which is above the 70
percent requirement.
• 100 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard which is above the 50 percent
requirement.
• The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed.
The remainder of this report describes our process and findings in detail.
PART 2 – MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10
REQUIREMENTS
The properties were inspected in accordance with the following requirements under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), which states:
INTERIOR INSPECTION
“The municipality may not make such determination [that the building is structurally substandard]
without an interior inspection of the property...”
EXTERIOR INSPECTION AND OTHER MEANS
“An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that
(1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts
to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and
(2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally
substandard.”
DOCUMENTATION
“Written documentation of the findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not conducted
must be made and retained under section 469.175, subdivision 3(1).”
QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 (a) (1) requires three tests for occupied parcels:
A. COVERAGE TEST
…“parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots…”
149
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793 Page 4 of 11 Final Report
The coverage required by the parcel to be considered occupied is defined under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which states: “For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel
is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar
structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved
or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures.”
B. CONDITION OF BUILDINGS TEST
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(a) states, “…and more than 50 percent of the
buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring
substantial renovation or clearance;”
1. Structurally substandard is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b),
which states: “For purposes of this subdivision, ‘structurally substandard’ shall mean
containing defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential
utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout
and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of
sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance.”
a. We do not count energy code deficiencies toward the thresholds required by Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b) defined as “structurally substandard”, due to
concerns expressed by the State of Minnesota Court of Appeals in the Walser Auto
Sales, Inc. vs. City of Richfield case filed November 13, 2001.
2. Buildings are not eligible to be considered structurally substandard unless they meet certain
additional criteria, as set forth in Subdivision 10(c) which states:
“A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code
applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of
less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage
and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as
structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available
evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing,
electrical, or structural repairs, or other similar reliable evidence.”
“Items of evidence that support such a conclusion [that the building is not disqualified]
include recent fire or police inspections, on-site property tax appraisals or housing
inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable evidence.”
LHB counts energy code deficiencies toward the 15 percent code threshold required by
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c)) for the following reasons:
• The Minnesota energy code is one of ten building code areas highlighted by the
Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry website where minimum
construction standards are required by law.
• Chapter 13 of the 2015 Minnesota Building Code states, “Buildings shall be designed
and constructed in accordance with the International Energy Conservation Code.”
Furthermore, Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1305.0021 Subpart 9 states, “References
150
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793 Page 5 of 11 Final Report
to the International Energy Conservation Code in this code mean the Minnesota Energy
Code…”
• The Senior Building Code Representative for the Construction Codes and
Licensing Division of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry
confirmed that the Minnesota Energy Code is being enforced throughout the State
of Minnesota.
• In a January 2002 report to the Minnesota Legislature, the Management Analysis
Division of the Minnesota Department of Administration confirmed that the
construction cost of new buildings complying with the Minnesota Energy Code is
higher than buildings built prior to the enactment of the code.
• Proper TIF analysis requires a comparison between the replacement value of a
new building built under current code standards with the repairs that would be
necessary to bring the existing building up to current code standards. In order for
an equal comparison to be made, all applicable code chapters should be applied to
both scenarios. Since current construction estimating software automatically
applies the construction cost of complying with the Minnesota Energy Code,
energy code deficiencies should also be identified in the existing structures.
C. DISTRIBUTION OF SUBSTANDARD BUILDINGS
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, defines a Redevelopment District and requires
one or more of the following conditions, “reasonably distributed throughout the district.”
(1) “Parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings,
streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures and more than
50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a
degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance;
(2) the property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently
used rail yards, rail storage facilities, or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way;
(3) tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities…”
Our interpretation of the distribution requirement is that the substandard buildings must be
reasonably distributed throughout the district as compared to the location of all buildings in
the district. For example, if all of the buildings in a district are located on one half of the
area of the district, with the other half occupied by parking lots (meeting the required 70
percent coverage for the district), we would evaluate the distribution of the substandard
buildings compared with only the half of the district where the buildings are located. If all of
the buildings in a district are located evenly throughout the entire area of the district, the
substandard buildings must be reasonably distributed throughout the entire area of the
district. We believe this is consistent with the opinion expressed by the State of Minnesota
Court of Appeals in the Walser Auto Sales, Inc. vs. City of Richfield case filed November 13,
2001.
PART 3 – PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
LHB inspected one (1) building during the day of September 16, 2016.
151
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793 Page 6 of 11 Final Report
PART 4 – FINDINGS
A. COVERAGE TEST
1. The total square foot area of the parcel in the proposed TIF District was obtained from City
records, GIS mapping and site verification.
2. The total square foot area of buildings and site improvements on the parcels in the
proposed TIF District was obtained from City records, GIS mapping and site verification.
3. The percentage of coverage for each parcel in the proposed TIF District was computed to
determine if the 15 percent minimum requirement was met. The total square footage of
parcels meeting the 15 percent requirement was divided into the total square footage of the
entire district to determine if the 70 percent requirement was met.
FINDING:
The proposed TIF District met the coverage test under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision
10(e), which resulted in parcels consisting of 100 percent of the area of the proposed TIF District
being occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures
(Diagram 2). This exceeds the 70 percent area coverage requirement for the proposed TIF District
under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision (a) (1).
Diagram 2 – Coverage Diagram
Shaded area depicts a parcel more than 15 percent occupied by buildings, streets, utilities,
paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures
152
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793 Page 7 of 11 Final Report
B. CONDITION OF BUILDING TEST
1. BUILDING INSPECTION
The first step in the evaluation process is the building inspection. After an initial walk-
thru, the inspector makes a judgment whether or not a building “appears” to have enough
defects or deficiencies of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or
clearance. If it does, the inspector documents with notes and photographs code and non-
code deficiencies in the building.
2. REPLACEMENT COST
The second step in evaluating a building to determine if it is substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance is to determine its replacement cost. This is
the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on site.
Replacement costs were researched using R.S. Means Cost Works square foot models for
2016.
A replacement cost was calculated by first establishing building use (office, retail, residential,
etc.), building construction type (wood, concrete, masonry, etc.), and building size to obtain
the appropriate median replacement cost, which factors in the costs of construction in
Columbia Heights, Minnesota.
Replacement cost includes labor, materials, and the contractor’s overhead and profit.
Replacement costs do not include architectural fees, legal fees or other “soft” costs not
directly related to construction activities. Replacement cost for each building is tabulated
in Appendix A.
3. CODE DEFICIENCIES
The next step in evaluating a building is to determine what code deficiencies exist with
respect to such building. Code deficiencies are those conditions for a building which are
not in compliance with current building codes applicable to new buildings in the State of
Minnesota.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), specifically provides that a building
cannot be considered structurally substandard if its code deficiencies are not at least 15
percent of the replacement cost of the building. As a result, it was necessary to determine
the extent of code deficiencies for each building in the proposed TIF District.
The evaluation was made by reviewing all available information with respect to such
buildings contained in City Building Inspection records and making interior and exterior
inspections of the buildings. LHB utilizes the current Minnesota State Building Code as
the official code for our evaluations. The Minnesota State Building Code is actually a series
of provisional codes written specifically for Minnesota only requirements, adoption of
several international codes, and amendments to the adopted international codes.
153
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793 Page 8 of 11 Final Report
After identifying the code deficiencies in each building, we used R.S. Means Cost Works
2016; Unit and Assembly Costs to determine the cost of correcting the identified
deficiencies. We were then able to compare the correction costs with the replacement cost
of each building to determine if the costs for correcting code deficiencies meet the required
15 percent threshold.
FINDING:
One (1) out of one (1) buildings (100 percent) in the proposed TIF District contained code
deficiencies exceeding the 15 percent threshold required by Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision 10(c). Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis
reports for the buildings in the proposed TIF District can be found in Appendix B of this
report.
4. SYSTEM CONDITION DEFICIENCIES
If a building meets the minimum code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision 10(c), then in order for such building to be “structurally substandard”
under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b), the building’s defects or
deficiencies should be of sufficient total significance to justify “substantial renovation or
clearance.” Based on this definition, LHB re-evaluated each of the buildings that met the
code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), to
determine if the total deficiencies warranted “substantial renovation or clearance” based on
the criteria we outlined above.
System condition deficiencies are a measurement of defects or substantial deterioration in
site elements, structure, exterior envelope, mechanical and electrical components, fire
protection and emergency systems, interior partitions, ceilings, floors and doors.
The evaluation of system condition deficiencies was made by reviewing all available
information contained in City records, and making interior and exterior inspections of the
buildings. LHB only identified system condition deficiencies that were visible upon our
inspection of the building or contained in City records. We did not consider the amount
of “service life” used up for a particular component unless it was an obvious part of that
component’s deficiencies.
After identifying the system condition deficiencies in each building, we used our
professional judgment to determine if the list of defects or deficiencies is of sufficient total
significance to justify “substantial renovation or clearance.”
FINDING:
In our professional opinion, one (1) out of one (1) buildings (100 percent) in the proposed
TIF District are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or
clearance, because of defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in
essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate
egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors which defects or
deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance.
This exceeds the 50 percent requirement of Subdivision 10a(1).
154
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793 Page 9 of 11 Final Report
C. DISTRIBUTION OF SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURES
Much of this report has focused on the condition of individual buildings as they relate to
requirements identified by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10. It is also
important to look at the distribution of substandard buildings throughout the geographic
area of the proposed TIF District (Diagram 3).
FINDING:
The parcels with substandard buildings are reasonably distributed compared to all parcels
that contain buildings.
In addition, the substandard buildings are reasonably distributed within the parcels that
contain buildings.
Diagram 3 – Substandard Buildings
Shaded green area depicts parcels with substandard buildings.
Shaded orange area depicts substandard buildings.
155
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793 Page 10 of 11 Final Report
PART 5 - TEAM CREDENTIALS
Michael A. Fischer, AIA, LEED AP - Project Principal/TIF Analyst
Michael has 30 years of experience as project principal, project manager, project designer and project
architect on planning, urban design, educational, commercial and governmental projects. He has
become an expert on Tax Increment Finance District analysis assisting over 100 cities with strategic
planning for TIF Districts. He is a Senior Vice President at LHB and currently leads the Minneapolis
office.
Michael completed a two-year Bush Fellowship, studying at MIT and Harvard in 1999, earning Masters
degrees in City Planning and Real Estate Development from MIT. He has served on more than 50
committees, boards and community task forces, including a term as a City Council President and as
Chair of a Metropolitan Planning Organization. Most recently, he served as Chair of the Edina,
Minnesota planning commission. Michael has also managed and designed several award-winning
architectural projects, and was one of four architects in the Country to receive the AIA Young
Architects Citation in 1997.
Philip Waugh – Project Manager/TIF Analyst
Philip is a project manager with 13 years of experience in historic preservation, building investigations,
material research, and construction methods. He previously worked as a historic preservationist and
also served as the preservation specialist at the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission. Currently,
Phil sits on the Board of Directors for the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota. His current
responsibilities include project management of historic preservation projects, performing building
condition surveys and analysis, TIF analysis, writing preservation specifications, historic design
reviews, writing Historic Preservation Tax Credit applications, preservation planning, and grant
writing.
Jonathan Pettigrew, AIA – Inspector
Jonathan Pettigrew has worked in architecture and construction for the last twenty years in Minnesota,
California and Washington. His experience includes a variety of commercial and residential project types
and scales, from single-family homes to a 300,000 square foot multi-building office complex. He has
significant experience in code reviews and building systems inspections and analysis. Jonathan received
his Minnesota architect’s license in 2004. He brings a strong interest in sustainability and an eye for
detail to his work. He enjoys working with clients, consultants and contractors to bring projects together
successfully.
O:\16Proj\160793\400 Design\406 Reports\Final Report\160793 20160930 Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District Report.docx
156
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793 Page 11 of 11 Final Report
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
APPENDIX B Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports
APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photographs
157
APPENDIX A
Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
158
159
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
V
a
l
u
C
e
n
t
e
r
T
a
x
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
-
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
S
h
e
e
t
TI
F
Ma
p
N
o
.
PI
D
#
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
Im
p
r
o
v
e
d
o
r
Va
c
a
n
t
Su
r
v
e
y
M
e
t
h
o
d
Us
e
d
Si
t
e
A
r
e
a
(S
.
F
.
)
Co
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
r
e
a
o
f
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
(S
.
F
.
)
Co
v
e
r
a
g
e
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Co
v
e
r
a
g
e
Qu
a
n
t
i
t
y
(S
.
F
.
)
No
.
o
f
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
Building Replacement Cost15% of Replacement CostBuilding Code DeficienciesNo. of Buildings Exceeding 15% CriteriaNo. of buildings determined substandard
A
35
-
3
0
-
2
4
-
1
1
-
0
0
8
3
4
3
0
0
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
A
V
E
N
E
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
/
E
x
t
er
i
o
r
4
4
1
,
6
9
8
4
3
1
,
8
5
4
9
7
.
8
%
4
4
1
,
6
9
8
1
$9,180,679$1,377,102$1,704,54211
TO
T
A
L
S
4
4
1
,
6
9
8
44
1
,
6
9
8
1
11
10
0
.
0
%
100.0%
O:
\
1
6
P
r
o
j
\
1
6
0
7
9
3
\
4
0
0
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
4
0
6
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
F
i
n
a
l
Re
p
o
r
t
\
[
1
6
0
7
9
3
2
0
1
6
0
9
2
9
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
V
a
l
u
C
e
n
t
e
r
T
a
x
I
n
c
r
e
m
en
t
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
S
u
m
m
ar
y
S
p
r
e
a
d
s
h
e
e
t
.
x
l
s
x
]
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
I
n
f
o
100.0%
To
t
a
l
C
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
:
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
i
n
g
1
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
c
o
d
e
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
:
Percent of buildings determined substandard:
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
V
a
l
u
C
e
n
t
e
r
T
a
x
In
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
LH
B
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
u
m
b
e
r
1
6
0
7
9
3
Pa
g
e
1
o
f
1
Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet160
APPENDIX B
Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Reports
161
162
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District Page 1 of 4 Building Report
LHB Project No. 160793 Parcel A
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report
29 September 2016
Map No. & Building Name: Parcel A Central Value Center Building
Address: 4300 Central Ave NE, Columbia Heights, MN
Parcel ID: Parcel ID: 35-30-24-11-0083
Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): September 16, 2016, 8:30am
Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior
Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard
because:
- Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found.
- Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% of
replacement cost, NOT including energy code deficiencies.
Estimated Replacement Cost: $9,180,679
Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $1,704,542
Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies: 18.57%
Defects in Structural Elements
1. Masonry under roof beam bearing point in Slumberland rear mezzanine is cracking. There are signs
of attempted repairs but a vertical crack has propagated since that repair indicating this is an on-going
problem.
2. A large (approximately 1/4” wide), crack is continuous from the top of wall to the corner of a door on
the west side of the building. There has been cracking subsequent to previous repair attempts
indicating ongoing movement.
3. Bricks where lintels bear above large louvers in south side are cracked and missing.
4. Lintels at garage doors on north side are rusting. Sealant between top of lintel and bottom of brick is
trapping water and accelerating corrosion.
Combination of Deficiencies
1. Essential Utilities and Facilities
a. Concrete sidewalks in front of building entrances are cracked and uneven and so do not
provide a code-compliant accessible route.
b. The former grocery store lacks adequate restroom facilities including accessible fixtures and
stalls.
c. Restrooms lack code required floor clearances at doors.
d. Building lacks plumbing fixtures at the gutted food preparation areas of the former grocery.
e. Slumberland back restroom lacks code-compliant grab bars at restrooms.
f. Slumberland mezzanine restroom lacks accessibility: the door is too narrow, and fixtures lack
required floor clearances and grab bars.
163
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District Page 2 of 4 Building Report
LHB Project No. 160793 Parcel A
g. Slumberland front vestibule restrooms (2) lack accessibility: insufficient interior dimensions,
inadequate door width, and inadequate clearances at fixtures and door.
h. Slumberland mezzanine and 1st floor office doors lack compliant operating hardware (should
be lever handles instead of knobs).
i. Building lacks a functioning air conditioning system at the vacant portions.
j. Many of the building’s heating units have been disconnected.
k. Corrosion present on electrical bus duct near louvers in south wall from moisture intrusion
through louver/wall threatens the integrity and safety of that part of the electrical system.
2. Light and Ventilation
a. There are many open electrical boxes and exposed wires in the former grocery store and in
the Slumberland back areas.
b. Building lacks code-compliant ventilation system.
3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress
a. Stair to 2nd floor at Rainbow has open risers; handrails lack extensions,
b. Rainbow 2nd floor metal guardrail openings are too large; guardrail is too low.
c. 2nd floor guardrail at warehouse mezzanine is too low, with openings that are too large.
d. Stair at south warehouse mezzanine is constructed of unprotected wood. It lacks compliant
handrails and guards.
e. Ships ladder at middle Rainbow mezzanine and to roof hatch is too steep.
f. Stairs to Slumberland front mezzanine are non-compliant for tread size.
g. Handrails at Slumberland front mezzanine stairs are too low and lack required extensions.
h. Mezzanine at roof access ladder lacks a guardrail.
i. Slumberland front mezzanine guardrail has excessively large openings.
j. Slumberland rear mezzanine guard rail is too low.
k. Thresholds at several egress doors exceed allowable 1/2”, particularly on the north side.
l. Stair at exits from Dollar Tree lacks handrails. Stair riser heights vary excessively.
4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials
a. Areas have undergone several phases of demolition due to past use and modifications,
resulting in missing and open walls.
b. There are significant holes and trenches in the floor slab of the former grocery store.
c. Resilient tile floor covering in former grocery space is in need of replacement due to wear,
stains and removal of fixtures and partitions.
d. Drywall ceiling and walls in grocery vestibule show water damage from leaks.
e. Walls exhibit many holes and show extensive damage.
f. In the Slumberland space, there are many missing and stained tiles. In general, the tiles are
bowed indicating excessive humidity/moisture.
g. Ceiling grids and tiles have been removed from most of the interior grocery food prep areas.
This would need to be repaired/replaced for proper functioning of the fire protection
sprinklers.
h. The Slumberland mezzanine office spaces show widespread damage from moisture and mold.
All floor, wall and ceiling finishes there should be removed and replaced.
5. Exterior Construction
a. Roof is at the end of its life and shows significant signs of leakage including standing water on
the floor at the back of the Rainbow space and Slumberland space, and stained ceiling tiles in
the Slumberland space. Building maintenance staff reported ongoing leaks and repeated
attempts to patch and repair the roof.
b. As required by the MN Commercial Energy Code C402.2.1.2, when re-roofing, insulation
must be added to bring the roof up to current code.
164
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District Page 3 of 4 Building Report
LHB Project No. 160793 Parcel A
c. Interior faces of exterior CMU walls show stains and efflorescence indicating moisture has
been moving through them.
d. There are widespread cracks in interior masonry walls.
e. Brick walls need extensive repointing and repair of cracks and holes in various areas.
f. Sealant at control joints is at the end of its life and is cracked and pulled away from masonry.
g. Hollow metal doors and frames on north and west sides of building have very corroded
bottoms.
h. Brick and block at south side covered loading dock is badly damaged and shows effects of on-
going roof leakage. Mortar is missing and bricks are loose.
i. Damage to EIFS of Dollar Tree façade.
j. EIFS façade and soffit of Frattallone’s and Slumberland have widespread cracks.
Description of Code Deficiencies
1. Concrete sidewalks in front of building entrances are cracked and uneven and so do not provide a
code-compliant accessible route.
2. The former grocery store lacks adequate restroom facilities including accessible fixtures and stalls.
3. Restrooms lack code required floor clearances at doors.
4. Building lacks plumbing fixtures at the gutted food preparation areas of the former grocery.
5. Slumberland restroom lacks code-compliant grab bars at restrooms.
6. Slumberland mezzanine restroom lacks accessibility: the door is too narrow, and fixtures lack required
floor clearances and grab bars.
7. Slumberland mezzanine and 1st floor office doors lack compliant operating hardware (should be lever
handles instead of knobs).
8. Building lacks a functioning air conditioning system at the vacant portions.
9. Corrosion on electrical bus duct near louvers in south wall from moisture intrusion through
louver/wall threatens the integrity and safety of that part of the electrical system.
10. There are many open electrical boxes and exposed wires in the former grocery store and in the
Slumberland back areas.
11. Building lacks code-compliant ventilation system.
12. Stair to 2nd floor at Rainbow has open risers, handrails lack extensions.
13. Rainbow 2nd floor metal guardrail openings are too large, and guardrail is too low.
14. 2nd floor guardrail at warehouse mezzanine is too low, with openings that are too large.
15. Stair at south warehouse mezzanine is constructed of unprotected wood. It lacks compliant handrails
and guards.
16. Ships ladder at middle Rainbow mezzanine and to roof hatch is too steep.
17. Stairs to Slumberland front mezzanine are non-compliant for tread size.
18. Handrails at Slumberland front mezzanine stairs are too low and lack required extensions.
19. Mezzanine at roof access ladder lacks a guardrail.
20. Slumberland front mezzanine guardrail has excessively large openings.
21. Slumberland rear mezzanine guard rail is too low.
22. Thresholds at several egress doors exceed allowable 1/2”, particularly on the north side.
23. Stair at exits from Dollar Tree lacks handrails. Stair riser heights vary excessively.
24. Roof is at the end of its life and shows significant signs of leakage including standing water on the floor
at the back of the Rainbow space and in the Slumberland space and stained ceiling tiles in the
Slumberland space. Building maintenance staff reported on-going leaks and repeated attempts to patch
and repair the roof.
25. Interior faces of exterior CMU walls show stains and efflorescence indicating moisture has been
moving through them.
26. Ceiling grids and tiles have been removed from most of the interior grocery food prep areas. This
would need to be repaired/replaced for proper functioning of the fire protection sprinklers.
27. There are widespread cracks in interior masonry walls.
165
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District Page 4 of 4 Building Report
LHB Project No. 160793 Parcel A
28. Brick walls need extensive repointing and repair of cracks and holes in various areas.
29. Sealant at control joints is at the end of its life and is cracked and pulled away from masonry.
30. Hollow metal doors and frames on north and west sides of building have very corroded bottoms.
31. Brick and block at south side covered loading dock is badly damaged and shows effects of on-going
roof leakage. Mortar is missing and bricks are loose.
Overview of Deficiencies
This building was originally constructed as a Zayre’s Shopper City in 1968. Currently, the building is divided
into five tenant spaces. The largest, southern portion of the building has been vacant since 2014 when Rainbow
Foods left, and that area has been largely gutted. The adjacent former Slumberland Clearance Center space has
been vacant for about three years. An Ace Hardware Store, a Dollar Tree and Meineke Muffler currently
occupy the other spaces.
Interior spaces show widespread signs of the roof leaking. It is at the end of its life.
Energy Code Deficiencies
In addition to the building code deficiencies listed above, the existing building does not comply with the current
energy code. These deficiencies are not included in the estimated costs to correct code deficiencies and are not
considered in determining whether or not the building is substandard: Under the 2015 Minnesota Building and
Energy Codes, the inadequacy of the roof insulation is required to be addressed when the building is reroofed.
Building lacks adequate insulation in walls and under the slab
O:\16Proj\160793\400 Design\406 Reports\Building Reports\160793 Parcel A 4300 Central Ave NE Building Report.docx
166
APPENDIX C
Building Replacement Cost Reports
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photographs
167
168
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
Replacement Cost Report
Square Foot Cost Estimate Report
Central Valu Center
Columbia Heights
4300 Central Avenue NE, Columbia Hts, MN
Building Type:
Store, Department, 1 Story with Face Brick and
Concrete Block back‐up / Steel Frame
Location:MINNEAPOLIS, MN
Story Count:1
Story Height (L.F.):21
Floor Area (S.F.):120905
Labor Type:OPN
Basement Included:No
Data Release:Year 2016 Quarter 3
Cost Per Square Foot:$83.71
Building Cost:$9,180,679
% of Total Cost Per S.F.Cost
8.89%$8.15 $ 816,109
A1010 Standard Foundations $0.99 $119,696
A1030 Slab on Grade $5.76 $696,413
A2010 Basement Excavation $0.35 $42,317
A2020 Basement Walls $1.05 $126,950
38.52%$29.80 $ 3,536,471
B1010 Floor Construction $0.50 $60,453
B1020 Roof Construction $10.92 $1,320,283
B2010 Exterior Walls $9.84 $1,189,705
B2020 Exterior Windows $2.01 $243,019
B2030 Exterior Doors $0.45 $54,407
B3010 Roof Coverings $6.03 $729,057
Estimate Name:
Costs are derived from a building model with basic components.
Scope differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly.
Brick wall, composite double wythe, standard face/CMU back‐up, 8"
Door, aluminum & glass, with transom, narrow stile, double door,
Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load 11.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity 6
B Shell
Slab on grade,4" thick, non industrial, reinforced
Excavate and fill, 100,000 SF, 4' deep, sand, gravel, or common earth, on
Foundation wall, CIP, 4' wall height, direct chute, .148 CY/LF, 7.2 PLF, 12"
A Substructure
Roof, steel joists, beams, 1.5" 22 ga metal deck, on columns, 30'x30' bay,
28" deep, 40 PSF superimposed load, 62 PSF total load
Spread footings, 3000 PSI concrete, load 75K, soil bearing capacity 6 KSF,
Fireproofing, gypsum board, fire rated, 1 layer, 1/2" thick, 14" steel
Aluminum flush tube frame, for 1/4"glass, 1‐3/4" x 4‐1/2", 5'x6' opening,
Glazing panel, plate glass, 3/8" thick, tinted
Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'‐0" x 7'‐
Door, steel 24 gauge, overhead, sectional, electric operator, 12'‐0" x 12'‐
Roofing, asphalt flood coat, gravel, base sheet, 3 plies 15# asphalt felt,
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793 Page 1 of 3
Replacement Cost Report
Parcel A169
% of TotalCost Per S.F.Cost
B3020 Roof Openings $0.05 $6,045
10.79%$13.31 $ 990,212
C1010 Partitions$2.63 $317,980
C1020Interior Doors $2.00 $241,810
C3010 Wall Finishes $0.31 $37,481
C3020 Floor Finishes $3.25 $392,941
C3030 Ceiling Finishes $5.12 $619,034
32.71%$24.84 $ 3,003,280
D2010Plumbing Fixtures $1.59 $192,239
D2020Domestic Water Distribution $0.37 $44,735
D2040 Rain Water Drainage $0.82 $99,142
D3050Terminal & Package Units $8.18 $989,003
D4010 Sprinklers $2.66 $321,607
D4020 Standpipes $0.28 $33,853
D5010Electrical Service/Distribution $0.67 $81,006
D5020Lighting and Branch Wiring $9.04 $1,092,981
Overhead service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit &
Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 1200 A
Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 5 per 1000 SF, .6 watts per SF
Wall switches, 2.0 per 1000 SF
Miscellaneous power, 1 watt
Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker,
Central air conditioning power, 6 watts
Service sink w/trim, PE on CI,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20"
Water cooler, electric, wall hung, dual height, 14.3 GPH
Acoustic ceilings, 5/8" plastic coated mineral fiber, 12" x 12" tile, 25 ga
Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, light hazard, 1 floor, 50,000 SF
Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, 1 floor
Roof drain, CI, soil,single hub, 5" diam, 35' high
D Services
Water closet, vitreous china, bowl only with flush valve, wall hung
Gas fired water heater, commercial, 100< F rise, 500 MBH input, 480 GPH
Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung
Rooftop, single zone, air conditioner, department stores, 10,000 SF, 29.17
Lavatory w/trim, vanity top, PE on CI, 20" x 18"
Door, single leaf, kd steel frame, hollow metal, commercial quality, flush,
Tile, ceramic natural clay, marble, synthetic 12" x 12" x 5/8"
5/8" gypsum board, taped & finished, painted on metal furring
Insulation, rigid, roof deck, extruded polystyrene, 40 PSI compressive
C Interiors
Metal partition, 5/8"fire rated gypsum board face, no base,3 ‐5/8" @ 24"
2 coats paint on masonry with block filler
Painting, interior on plaster and drywall, walls & ceilings, roller work,
Roof edges, aluminum, duranodic, .050" thick, 6" face
Gravel stop, aluminum, extruded, 4", mill finish, .050" thick
Roof hatch, with curb, 1" fiberglass insulation, 2'‐6" x 3'‐0", galvanized
Vinyl composition tile 12"x12"
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793 Page 2 of 3
Replacement Cost Report
Parcel A170
% of TotalCost Per S.F.Cost
D5030 Communications and Security $1.23 $148,713
D5090 Other Electrical Systems $0
0.00%$0.00 $ ‐
E1090 Other Equipment $0.00 $0
0.00%$0.00 $ ‐
F1040 Special Facilities $0.00 $0
0%0 0
100%$76.10$8,346,072
10.0%$7.61 $834,607
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00
$83.71$9,180,679
Internet wiring, 8 data/voice outlets per 1000 S.F.
none
Contractor Fees (General Conditions,Overhead,Profit)
Architectural Fees
Telephone wiring 8 jacks/MSF (cost per MSF)
Fluorescent fixtures suspended from deck, 1.6 watt per SF, 40 FC, 10
Fire alarm command center, addressable without voice, excl. wire &
Communication and alarm systems, includes outlets, boxes, conduit and
Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 25
Total Building Cost
E Equipment & Furnishings
F Special Construction
G Building Sitework
SubTotal
User Fees
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793 Page 3 of 3
Replacement Cost Report
Parcel A171
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Parcel A: 4300 Central Ave NE, Columbia Heights, MN
Parcel ID: 35-30-24-11-0083
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit
Quantity Total
Structural Elements
Repair damaged masonry at beam bearing
remove broken block/brick, temp shoring400.00$ Lump1 400$
new block and grouting 3,500.00$ Lump1 3,500$
Repair exterior masonry wall cracks
grout injection 415.00$ LF62 25,730$
Rusty lintels at exterior door openings 1,200.00$ Lump8 9,600$
Repair/replace damaged masonry at lintel bearing 2,700.00$ Lump1 2,700$
Accessibility Items
Provide accessible restrooms per Code
Build (2) new accessible toilet rooms w/ compliant number of accessories and fixtures
water closets2,500.00$ each4 10,000$
lavatories 1,750.00$ each4 7,000$
2 sets of grab bars 300.00$ each2 600$
4 sets toilet room accessories 300.00$ each4 1,200$
Interior room reconstruction (doors, partitions, finishes)78.00$ SF180 14,040$
new door 6'-8"x3'-0"800.00$ Each2 1,600$
Install toilet Room Ventilation System 500.00$ each2 1,000$
Slumberland Mezzanine- reconfigure wall layout uni-sex restroom
demo existing doors and outer walls 350.00$ lump1 350$
water closets 2,500.00$ each1 2,500$
lavatories 1,750.00$ each1 1,750$
new wall construction and finishes 78.00$ SF60 4,680$
new doors and frames 800.00$ ea 1 800$
Selective replacement of broken and cracked concrete sidewalks
demo existing 1,050.00$ lump1 1,050$
replace sidewalk slabs 15.00$ SF480 7,200$
Provide drinking fountains for accessibility code compliance1,200.00$ ea 2 2,400$
Replace knobs with compliant operating hardware (levers)400.00$ ea 7 2,800$
Exiting
Replace thresholds that exceed 1/2" high 250.00$ ea6 1,500$
provide landing stoop outside north side doors 60.00$ SF100 6,000$
replace rusted exterior doors, frames and hardware -pair3,882.00$ ea 3 11,646$
replace rusted exterior doors, frames and hardware -single2,073.00$ ea 4 8,292$
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793 Page 1 of 3
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Parcel A172
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit
Quantity Total
Structural Elements
Repair damaged masonry at beam bearing
remove broken block/brick, temp shoring400.00$ Lump1 400$
new block and grouting 3,500.00$ Lump1 3,500$
Repair exterior masonry wall cracks
grout injection 415.00$ LF62 25,730$
Rusty lintels at exterior door openings 1,200.00$ Lump8 9,600$
Repair/replace damaged masonry at lintel bearing 2,700.00$ Lump1 2,700$
provide lighted exit signage 350.00$ ea 4 1,400$
Rainbow south mezzanine stairs, including landings (2)
demo existing stairs 400.00$ ea 2 800$
new steel stairs with concrete fill pan treads (16 risers)6,750.00$ ea 2 13,500$
steel pipe handrails 50.00$ LF84 4,200$
Slumberland front stairs and rails (2)
demo existing stairs 400.00$ ea 2 800$
new steel stairs with concrete fill pan treads (16 risers)6,750.00$ ea 2 13,500$
steel pipe handrails 50.00$ LF84 4,200$
Replace non-compliant back exit stairs (4 risers) (3)
demo existing concrete stairs 400.00$ Lump3 1,200$
new concrete stairs 2,000.00$ Lump3 6,000$
provide handrails 50.00$ LF45 2,250$
Guards (separate from combined hand/guardrails at stairs): Replace/modify non-compliant guards
southeast (office) mezzanine guardrail 94.00$ LF10 940$
southwest (warehouse) mezzanine guardrail 94.00$ LF 9 846$
middle mezzanine guardrail 94.00$ LF26 2,444$
Slumberland rear mezzanine stair opening guards 94.00$ LF55 5,170$
Slumberland front mezzanine guard 94.00$ LF50 4,700$
Interior Construction
fill holes and trenches in floor slab 30.00$ SF120 3,600$
6.15$ SF3,200 19,680$
Fire Protection
Provide intact ceiling for proper fire detection and suppression
3.80$ SF8,210 31,198$
replace damaged/missing grid and tiles in ex-Rainbow 5.12$ SF4,200 21,504$
provide fire alarm system at gutted area 0.85$ SF4,200 3,570$
provide fire-taped gyp board at open framing and exposed
insulation
replace damaged/missing tiles in ex-Slumberland 33% of
area
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793 Page 2 of 3
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Parcel A173
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit
Quantity Total
Structural Elements
Repair damaged masonry at beam bearing
remove broken block/brick, temp shoring400.00$ Lump1 400$
new block and grouting 3,500.00$ Lump1 3,500$
Repair exterior masonry wall cracks
grout injection 415.00$ LF62 25,730$
Rusty lintels at exterior door openings 1,200.00$ Lump8 9,600$
Repair/replace damaged masonry at lintel bearing 2,700.00$ Lump1 2,700$
Exterior Construction
12 joints at 32lf/each 11.30$ LF384 4,339$
5.47$ SF 3,908 21,377$
remove paint to allow repointing 0.75$ SF 3,908 2,931$
10.69$ SF 4,440 47,464$
fill and repair holes in exterior brick and block walls 3,700.00$ lump 1 3,700$
replace/repoint at lintels 6.65$ SF 120 798$
Roof Construction
remove existing leaking roof 0.75$ SF120,905 90,679$
replace water-damaged cover boards (20%)1.26$ SF24,181 30,468$
add insulation per MN Code C402.2.1.2 (3 1/2" polyiso)2.74$ SF120,905 331,280$
Replace leaking roof 6.03$ SF120,905 729,057$
New 25' high ship's ladder for roof access 10,000.00$ lump 1 10,000$
Mechanical- Electrical
Provide new heating unit at gutted area 11,500.00$ each1 11,500$
Provide water heater and plumbing at central area 11,000.00$ each1 11,000$
Provide required ventilation system
Mechanical equipment, ductwork and units 0.82$ SF120,905 99,142$
provide lighting and branch wiring at gutted area 9.04$ SF 4,200 37,968$
provide exterior outlets with weatherproof covers 250.00$ ea12 3,000$
Total Code Improvements1,704,542$
Repoint block joints (25%)
remove and replace sealant at control joints
Repoint brick joints (25%)
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793 Page 3 of 3
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Parcel A174
Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
Photos: Parcel A, 4300 Central Ave NE
Page 1 of 22
DSCN5163.JPG DSCN5164.JPG DSCN5165.JPG
DSCN5166.JPG DSCN5167.JPG DSCN5168.JPG
DSCN5169.JPG DSCN5170.JPG DSCN5171.JPG
DSCN5172.JPG DSCN5173.JPG DSCN5174.JPG
175
Page 2 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5175.JPG DSCN5176.JPG DSCN5177.JPG
DSCN5178.JPG DSCN5179.JPG DSCN5180.JPG
DSCN5181.JPG
DSCN5182.JPG DSCN5183.JPG
DSCN5184.JPG DSCN5185.JPG DSCN5186.JPG
176
Page 3 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5187.JPG DSCN5188.JPG DSCN5189.JPG
DSCN5190.JPG DSCN5191.JPG DSCN5192.JPG
DSCN5193.JPG DSCN5194.JPG DSCN5195.JPG
DSCN5196.JPG DSCN5197.JPG DSCN5198.JPG
177
Page 4 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5199.JPG DSCN5200.JPG DSCN5201.JPG
DSCN5202.JPG DSCN5203.JPG DSCN5204.JPG
DSCN5205.JPG DSCN5206.JPG DSCN5207.JPG
DSCN5208.JPG DSCN5209.JPG DSCN5210.JPG
178
Page 5 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5211.JPG DSCN5212.JPG DSCN5213.JPG
DSCN5214.JPG
DSCN5215.JPG
DSCN5216.JPG
DSCN5217.JPG DSCN5218.JPG DSCN5219.JPG
DSCN5220.JPG DSCN5221.JPG DSCN5222.JPG
179
Page 6 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5223.JPG DSCN5224.JPG DSCN5225.JPG
DSCN5226.JPG DSCN5227.JPG DSCN5228.JPG
DSCN5229.JPG DSCN5230.JPG DSCN5231.JPG
DSCN5232.JPG DSCN5233.JPG DSCN5234.JPG
180
Page 7 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5235.JPG DSCN5236.JPG DSCN5237.JPG
DSCN5238.JPG DSCN5239.JPG DSCN5240.JPG
DSCN5241.JPG DSCN5242.JPG DSCN5243.JPG
DSCN5244.JPG DSCN5245.JPG DSCN5246.JPG
181
Page 8 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5247.JPG
DSCN5248.JPG
DSCN5249.JPG
DSCN5250.JPG DSCN5251.JPG DSCN5252.JPG
DSCN5253.JPG DSCN5254.JPG DSCN5255.JPG
DSCN5256.JPG DSCN5257.JPG DSCN5258.JPG
182
Page 9 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5259.JPG DSCN5260.JPG DSCN5261.JPG
DSCN5262.JPG DSCN5263.JPG DSCN5264.JPG
DSCN5265.JPG DSCN5266.JPG DSCN5267.JPG
DSCN5268.JPG DSCN5269.JPG DSCN5270.JPG
183
Page 10 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5271.JPG DSCN5272.JPG DSCN5273.JPG
DSCN5274.JPG DSCN5275.JPG DSCN5276.JPG
DSCN5277.JPG DSCN5278.JPG DSCN5279.JPG
DSCN5280.JPG DSCN5281.JPG DSCN5282.JPG
184
Page 11 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5283.JPG DSCN5284.JPG DSCN5285.JPG
DSCN5286.JPG DSCN5287.JPG DSCN5288.JPG
DSCN5289.JPG DSCN5290.JPG DSCN5291.JPG
DSCN5292.JPG DSCN5293.JPG DSCN5294.JPG
185
Page 12 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5295.JPG DSCN5296.JPG DSCN5297.JPG
DSCN5298.JPG DSCN5299.JPG
DSCN5300.JPG
DSCN5301.JPG DSCN5302.JPG DSCN5303.JPG
DSCN5304.JPG DSCN5305.JPG DSCN5306.JPG
186
Page 13 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5307.JPG DSCN5308.JPG DSCN5309.JPG
DSCN5310.JPG
DSCN5311.JPG
DSCN5312.JPG
DSCN5313.JPG DSCN5314.JPG DSCN5315.JPG
DSCN5316.JPG DSCN5317.JPG DSCN5318.JPG
187
Page 14 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5319.JPG DSCN5320.JPG DSCN5321.JPG
DSCN5322.JPG DSCN5323.JPG DSCN5324.JPG
DSCN5325.JPG DSCN5326.JPG DSCN5327.JPG
DSCN5328.JPG DSCN5329.JPG DSCN5330.JPG
188
Page 15 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5331.JPG
DSCN5332.JPG DSCN5333.JPG
DSCN5334.JPG DSCN5335.JPG DSCN5336.JPG
DSCN5337.JPG DSCN5338.JPG DSCN5339.JPG
DSCN5340.JPG DSCN5341.JPG DSCN5342.JPG
189
Page 16 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5343.JPG DSCN5344.JPG
DSCN5345.JPG
DSCN5346.JPG DSCN5347.JPG DSCN5348.JPG
DSCN5349.JPG DSCN5350.JPG DSCN5351.JPG
DSCN5352.JPG DSCN5353.JPG DSCN5354.JPG
190
Page 17 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5355.JPG DSCN5356.JPG DSCN5357.JPG
DSCN5358.JPG DSCN5359.JPG DSCN5360.JPG
DSCN5361.JPG DSCN5362.JPG DSCN5363.JPG
DSCN5364.JPG DSCN5365.JPG DSCN5366.JPG
191
Page 18 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5367.JPG
DSCN5368.JPG DSCN5369.JPG
DSCN5370.JPG DSCN5371.JPG DSCN5372.JPG
DSCN5373.JPG DSCN5374.JPG DSCN5375.JPG
DSCN5376.JPG DSCN5377.JPG DSCN5378.JPG
192
Page 19 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5379.JPG DSCN5380.JPG DSCN5381.JPG
DSCN5382.JPG
DSCN5383.JPG
DSCN5384.JPG
DSCN5385.JPG DSCN5386.JPG DSCN5387.JPG
DSCN5388.JPG DSCN5389.JPG DSCN5390.JPG
193
Page 20 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5391.JPG DSCN5392.JPG
DSCN5393.JPG
DSCN5394.JPG DSCN5395.JPG DSCN5396.JPG
DSCN5397.JPG DSCN5398.JPG DSCN5399.JPG
DSCN5400.JPG DSCN5401.JPG DSCN5402.JPG
194
Page 21 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5403.JPG DSCN5404.JPG DSCN5405.JPG
DSCN5406.JPG DSCN5407.JPG DSCN5408.JPG
DSCN5409.JPG DSCN5410.JPG DSCN5411.JPG
DSCN5412.JPG DSCN5413.JPG DSCN5414.JPG
195
Page 22 of 22Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District
LHB Project No. 160793
Photos
Parcel A
DSCN5415.JPG DSCN5416.JPG DSCN5417.JPG
DSCN5418.JPG DSCN5419.JPG
DSCN5420.JPG
DSCN5421.JPG DSCN5422.JPG
196
Appendix G
Findings Including But/For Qualifications
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF
Plan) for Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District (District), as required pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows:
1.Finding that Central Valu Center Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as
defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10.
The District consists of one parcel, with plans to redevelop the area for commercial/industrial
purposes. At least 70 percent of the area of the parcel in the District is occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. The District contains one building,
which has been analyzed by the City’s consultant, LHB, and found to be structurally substandard to
a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance.
2.Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be
expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that
the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of
tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from
the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the
maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur
solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported
by the fact that the redevelopment proposed in the TIF Plan meets the City's objectives for
redevelopment, but due to the high costs of acquisition, tenant relocation, environmental remediation
and renovation of a structurally substandard building, this project is feasible only through assistance,
in part, from tax increment financing. The developer was asked for and provided a letter and a
proforma as justification that the developer would not have gone forward without tax increment
assistance.
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of
tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the
proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the
maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan: This finding is justified on the grounds
that the cost of acquisition, tenant relocation and environmental remediation add to the total
redevelopment cost. Historically, these costs in this area have made redevelopment infeasible
without tax increment assistance. The site has been predominately vacant for the last few years. The
City reasonably determines that no other significant renovation/redevelopment/reuse of similar scope
is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development.
Therefore, the City concludes as follows:
a.The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will
increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0.
b.If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $8,859,100.
c.The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the
district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $3,678,030.
Appendix G-1
197
d.Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council
finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than
$3,181,070 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment
assistance.
3.Finding that the TIF Plan for the District conforms to the general plan for the development or
redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to the
general development plan of the City.
4.Finding that the TIF Plan for the District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound
needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Downtown Central Business
Redevelopment Project by private enterprise.
The project to be assisted by the District will result in increased employment in the City and the State
of Minnesota, the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high
quality development to the City.
But-For Analysis
Current Market Value 5,140,900
New Market Value - Estimate 12,000,000
Difference 6,859,100
Present Value of Tax Increment 3,678,030
Difference 3,181,070
Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less
Than:
3,181,070
Appendix G-2
198
199
200
AGENDA SECTION OTHER ORD. AND RESOLUTIONS
ITEM NO. 9A
MEETING DATE OCTOBER 24, 2016
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER
ITEM: Library Seasonal Wage Adjustment
DEPARTMENT: Administration CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL:
BY/DATE: Kelli Bourgeois; 10/20/16 BY/DATE:
BACKGROUND:
The library has lost a number of Pages and is currently having problems finding qualified applicants to fill the
part time temporary Page position. They are currently staffed at 5 Pages while the normal number is 10 to 12.
In reviewing the wage rates for other metro area libraries for Pages we found that we are paying significantly
less than the other libraries in the area. While reviewing the Page wages, we also found that our Library Aide
and Library Supervisor positions are also significantly underpaid.
Staff is requesting the City Council adjust all of the library’s part time temporary wages as shown on the
attached Schedule 1. These are consistent with the neighboring library salary rates as well as other internal
positions such as Facility Supervisor and Retail Clerk.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2016-104, there being ample copies
available to the public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2016-104, adopting changes in wage rates for part time
temporary library employees effective November 1, 2016.
2016 PT Temp Library Wages Council Letter rd
201
RESOLUTION 2016-104
A Resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, Amending
Schedule I of Resolution 2015-39, Part Time Temporary Library Wage Rate
Whereas, on May 11, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution 2015-39 establishing wages
for part time temporary library and other positions; and
Whereas, the City has been trying to fill vacant part time temporary Library Page positions and
has not received adequate applications for the positions; and
Whereas, due to this lack of applicants the City studied the compensation ranges for temporary
Library Page, Library Aide, and Library Supervisor positions with other metro area libraries and
found a wage discrepancy between the Columbia Heights library wages and other metro area
library wages for comparable positions; and
Whereas, the lack of staffing is causing the Columbia Heights Library Director to schedule
existing staff for more hours than they were hired for and run short staffed on many shifts.
Now, therefore, in accordance with all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia
Heights, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following:
ORDER OF COUNCIL
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that Schedule I of Resolution 2015-39 is hereby amended to establish
the wage ranges for the Part Time Temporary Library Employees as attached in Exhibit A
effective November 1, 2016.
Passed this 24th day of October, 2016.
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
____________________________________
Gary L. Peterson, Mayor
_______________________________________
Katie Bruno
Council Secretary/City Clerk
202
2015
PART TIME TEMPORARY LIBRARY EMPLOYEES
SCHEDULE I
PROPOSED
PAGE
Entry
$10.21 12.248
6 months
$10.81 13.779
12 months
$11.41 14.5445
24 months
$12.01 15.31
LIBRARY
AIDE
Entry
$10.45 17.28
6 months
$11.10 18.36
12 months
$11.75 19.44
24 months
$12.41 20.52
36 months
$13.06 21.6
LIBRARY
SUPERVISORS
Entry
$19.21 22.329
6 months
$20.27 23.5695
18 months
$21.34 24.81
Effective June 1, 2015
203
AGENDA SECTION NEW BUSINESS
ITEM NO. 9C
MEETING DATE OCTOBER 24, 2016
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - COUNCIL LETTER
ITEM: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Authorization
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER’S APPROVAL:
BY/DATE: Joe Hogeboom/ 10-04-16 BY/DATE:
BACKGROUND:
The City of Columbia Heights is required to complete an update to its Comprehensive Plan. The Metropolitan
Council requires that updates to the plan are made every ten years. The last update was completed in 2008,
and this update is due to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council by the end of 2018.
The Comprehensive Plan guides the City’s future land use, housing needs, transportation needs, water
resources and economic development. The City Planner will oversee the completion of the Comprehensive
Plan. Funds have been identified in the Special Projects Account (Fund 226) that will help to cover costs
associated with this project. Staff hopes to begin searching for professional services this fall, and begin the
Comprehensive Plan update process in January.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 2016-99, authorizing commencing the 2018 Comprehensive Plan
revision process, and appropriated a project budget of no more than $100,000 from the Special Projects Fund
226 to be devoted to the project.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
Motion: Waive the reading of Resolution No. 99, there being ample copies available to the public.
Motion: Move to approve Resolution No. 99, being Resolution authorizing commencing the 2018
Comprehensive Plan revision process, and appropriated a project budget of no more than $100,000 from the
Special Projects Fund 226 to be devoted to the project.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution No. 99 (1 page)
204
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-99
A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota,
Whereas, the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) has been the regional policy-making body, planning agency, and
provider of essential services for the seven-county Twin Cities region for nearly 50 years, and;
Whereas, a 17-member board appointed by the Governor guides the strategic growth of the metro area, adhering to the
council’s mission of fostering efficient growth for a prosperous region, and;
Whereas, in an effort to establish uniform regional governance of housing, transportation, and utility infrastructure, the
Metropolitan Council requires each unit of local government within its jurisdiction to maintain a Comprehensive Plan,
and;
Whereas, Comprehensive Plans must be updated and reapproved by the Metropolitan Council every ten years, with the
next approval deadline being December 31, 2018, and;
Whereas, the City of Columbia Heights is required to adhere to regional Comprehensive Plan standards and
requirements.
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 hereby supports commencing the 2018 Comprehensive Plan revision
process, and appropriates a project budget of no more than $100,000 from the Special Projects Fund 226 to be devoted
to the production of the Plan, effective from the date below.
Passed this _________ day of ______________________, 2016
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Gary L. Peterson, Mayor
Attest:
Katie Bruno, City Clerk/Council Secretary
205