Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-2021 City Council Work Session Packet CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Amáda Márquez Simula Councilmembers John Murzyn, Jr. Connie Buesgens Nick Novitsky Kt Jacobs City Manager Kelli Bourgeois Public Safety Bldg—Training Room, 825 41st Ave NE Monday, April 05, 2021 7:00 PM AMENDED AGENDA NOTICE THAT THIS MEETING MAY BE CONDUCTED BY A COMBINATION OF IN-PERSON AND ELECTRONIC MEANS Following a determination by City Manager Kelli Bourgeois, and emergencies declared by the United States, The State of Minnesota, and the Columbia Heights Mayor & City Council, this meeting may, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13D.021, occur by a combination of in-person and electronic means. In all meeting formats, members of the public who wish to attend may do so by attending in -person, by calling 1-312-626-6799 and entering meeting ID 891 4134 4862, or by Zoom at https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89141344862 at the scheduled meeting time. For questions regarding this notice, please contact the City Clerk at (763) 706-3611. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL WORK SESSION ITEMS 1. Vaccination Clinics 2. MnDOT PEL Study 3. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Lines 4. 37th Avenue Proposed Layout - 30% Design 5. Sewer Capacity Study 6. Purchase of Finance and HR Software (ERP system) 7. Booster Wagon at Liquor Store 8. Fireworks Budget 9. Properties with Junk Vehicles and Chronic Trash and Outside Storage Issues 10. AARP Grant 11. Charter Commission Appointments ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary aids or other accommodations for individuals with disabilities are available upon request when the request is made at least 72 hours in advance. Please contact Administration at 763-706-3610 to make arrangements. Agenda Amended to Add Items in Red on 4/5/21 Prior to the Work Session 1 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA SECTION WORK SESSION MEETING DATE APRIL 5, 2021 ITEM: MNDOT PEL STUDY DEPARTMENT: Public Works BY/DATE: Kevin Hansen/April 1, 2021 CITY STRATEGY: (please indicate areas that apply by adding a bold “X” in front of the selected text below) X_Safe Community _Diverse, Welcoming “Small-Town” Feel _Economic Strength _Excellent Housing/Neighborhoods _Equity and Affordability X_Strong Infrastructure/Public Services _Opportunities for Play and Learning _Engaged, Multi-Generational, Multi-Cultural Population BACKGROUND: The City of Columbia Heights has been participating in MnDOT’s PEL study along TH 47 and TH 65 for the past year. A PEL study looks at current transportation conditions and problems, following a federally established process, and presents the likely future needs for the next 20 or more years, based on traffic data, existing conditions and community input. A PEL study is a relatively new tool for MnDOT. It emphasizes community engagement and collaboration early in transportation planning. This will allow MnDOT to better understand community needs before specific transportation projects are designed and built. The first phase of a PEL study will not be looking at specific improvements, but will present long- term vision of what types of improvements are needed most and where they should be located. The intent of the PEL Study is improved safety, focusing on pedestrians . Previous studies along these segments of University and Central Avenues, including MnDOT’s 2018 Road Safety Audit and the Minneapolis 2019 Vision Zero Plan, have highlighted safety and accessibility needs for bicyclists and pedestrians. The rates of fatal and severe crashes here are above the statewide average. There are more accidents than average on some segments of Hwy 47 and Hwy 65, and the accidents that involve pedestrians and bicyclists are far more likely to result in death or serious injuries. There have been two more pedestrian fatalities on Central Avenue, in June and August 2020. The PEL study will produce a “road map” of where improvements are needed most—based on community input and data analysis. The study will not design specific construct ion projects, but will lay the groundwork that is necessary to help MnDOT and local partners prioritize projects and obtain funds for them. The first phase of the PEL study is intended to be completed this spring, and MnDOT has indicated they will be m oving to the second phase this fall following an RFP process and consultant selection. The City of Columbia Heights has been approached by MnDOT regarding the installation of “demonstration projects’ along Central Avenue. As proposed through the PEL Study, these include:  37th – Continue to look at potential demonstration options with upcoming project in 2023 .  39th – Keep intersection median open. Consider bump outs or center median refuge. 2 Item 2. City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2  Gould – ¾ intersection, median extension/refuge, bump out on the west curb of SB TH65  40th – Delineators only – bump outs on all 4 corners with left turn hardening and potential  LPI42nd/43rd – ¾ intersection or full closure using delineators (concrete barriers?)  44th - Bump outs on all 4 corners with left turn hardening  45th – Left turn hardening, median extensions/refuge  47th - Consider bump outs or center median refuge  50th – Hardened center line/median extensions and proposed LPI MnDOT’s North Area Engineer, Tony Wotzka, will attend the meeting (via Zoom) to review the PEL study, the 2021 demonstration projects in Columbia Heights, and next steps moving forward. ATTACHMENT(S): 3 Item 2. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA SECTION WORK SESSION MEETING DATE APRIL 5, 2021 ITEM: BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) LINES DEPARTMENT: Public Works BY/DATE: Kevin Hansen/April 1, 2021 CITY STRATEGY: (please indicate areas that apply by adding a bold “X” in front of the selected text below) X_Safe Community _Diverse, Welcoming “Small-Town” Feel _Economic Strength _Excellent Housing/Neighborhoods _Equity and Affordability X_Strong Infrastructure/Public Services _Opportunities for Play and Learning _Engaged, Multi-Generational, Multi-Cultural Population BACKGROUND: ‘NetworkNext’ is a 20-year plan initiated by Metro Transit for expanding and improving the bus network serving the metro area. Transit improvements under consideration include improved local and express routes, integrated shared mobility options, and new arterial bus rapid transit (BRT) lines. Bus rapid transit (BRT) provides an improved customer experience with frequent service and faster trips in our the Metro’s busiest bus corridors. Metro Transit first studied a dozen potential BRT lines in 2011 -2012. This study led to the implementation of the METRO A Line in 2016 and the METRO C Line in 2019. Metro Transit has reported both lines have been very successful in increasing ridership and customers satisfaction. In 2020 and 2021, Metro Transit engaged the public to help identify the Metro’s next BRT priorities. Each step was based on four principles that guided the planning process for BRT, rooted in public engagement, Metropolitan Council transit policy, and the performance of the bus network:  Advance equity and reduce regional racial disparities  Build on success to grow ridership  Design a network that supports a transit-oriented lifestyle  Ensure the long-term sustainable growth of the bus network In February 2021, following months of analysis and community engagement, Metro Transit finalized recommendations for the next expansions in the BRT network:  The METRO F Line will serve the Central Avenue corridor, modifying Route 10 from downtown Minneapolis to Northtown Mall via Central and University avenues.  The METRO G Line will serve the Rice/Robert corridor, traveling between West St. Paul and Little Canada via Robert and Rice streets and replacing portions of routes 62 and 68.  The METRO H Line will serve the Como/Maryland corridor from downtown Minneapolis to Sun Ray Transit Center in St. Paul via Como Avenue and Maryland Avenue, replacing and extending Route 3. METRO F LINE: The Metro F Line has now been approved by the Metropolitan Council and will join a growing network of BRT lines. Approximately 25% of the total $81 million dollar estimated cost has already been allocated to the F line for construction. Over the next four years Metro Transit will be pursuing funds for this 4 Item 3. City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2 project, typically by a mix of Federal, State, and Metro Council funds.  Metro Transit developed a corridor concept plan that identifies preliminary station locations and service plans for the F Line and modifications to existing routes in the corridor (attached). Highlights are as follows: o BRT would replace bus route 10 on University Avenue north of 53 rd Avenue. o Bus route 10 would continue to run but be modified from 53rd Avenue from downtown Minneapolis, and run at a reduced frequency at every 30 minutes. o Bus route 59 would be eliminated and replaced by the BRT. o There are six stops proposed for the BRT line in Columbia Heights: on Central at 37th, 41st, 45th 49th and 53rd Avenues and at University on 53rd. o The BRT stop at 41st Avenue would be on-street, not in the transit hub. o Metro Transit’s next step will be to develop a corridor plan that sites stations more specifically, down to the intersection corner. o A Technical Advisory Committee will be convened made up of corridor cities, counties, and MnDOT toward the end of 2021. o Public engagement around the corridor plan would likely begin in the first half of 2022. o Following multiple public review periods, the final plan would be approved by the Metropolitan Council in 2023. o Following plan approval, construction plans will start in 2023, working closely with the local governments and MnDOT. o Plans would be finalized in late 2024 for a spring 2025 construction start, pending full funding . o The F Line would open for service in 2026, pending full funding. The current concept plan for BRT Metro F Line will continue to be refined as Metro Transit moves through planning and closer to implementation, with local agency and public review as well. ATTACHMENT(S): BRT Corridor Profile 5 Item 3. Arterial BRT Corridor Concepts December 2020 6 Item 3. Network Next | Arterial BRT Corridor Concepts: Preliminary Alignments, Stations, and Service Plans 14 Central Concept Station Locations From north to south, the corridor begins at Northtown Mall in Blaine and ends in downtown Minneapolis. The Central preliminary concept identifies 30 station intersections over the approximately 13.0-mile corridor. Today, the corridor is primarily served by Route 10. Considerations in the corridor: • The station at University and 69th Avenue in Fridley differs from the station siting identified in the 2012 Arterial Transitway Corridors Study (ATCS) due to new developments in the area. The station would also serve Fridley city hall. • A station is sited to the west of the intersection of Central Avenue & 53rd Avenue, near Target. • Stations at 49th Avenue and 45th Avenue could be shifted to better serve the Hilltop mobile home community. • The station at 41st Avenue would be on-street, removing the current pull-in to the Columbia Heights Transit Center. • Station siting in the segment between the Columbia Heights Transit Center and Lowry Avenue in Minneapolis with low existing Route 10 ridership could be adjusted; planning should consider a station near apartment homes at 35th Avenue. • Mid-block station siting between University Avenue and 4th Street along Central would facilitate transfers to the METRO E Line. • The current alignment would partially operate on a new Washington Avenue transit spine in downtown Minneapolis. • Future planning should consider an alternative alignment that uses the Hennepin Avenue bridge to cross the Mississippi River, then travels along East Hennepin Avenue and Northeast 1st Avenue in northeast Minneapolis. Such may alleviate the potential for shared station and alignment issues along the proposed Washington Avenue transit spine at South 3rd Avenue & Washington Avenue. 7 Item 3. Network Next | Arterial BRT Corridor Concepts: Preliminary Alignments, Stations, and Service Plans 15 Maps Figure 5. Central Concept Alignment and Station Locations – North 8 Item 3. Network Next | Arterial BRT Corridor Concepts: Preliminary Alignments, Stations, and Service Plans 16 Figure 6. Central Concept Alignment and Station Locations – South 9 Item 3. Network Next | Arterial BRT Corridor Concepts: Preliminary Alignments, Stations, and Service Plans 17 Concept Service Plan The corridor is served today primarily by Route 10, which operates three main patterns (or branches) based out of downtown Minneapolis: • 10H to 53rd Avenue via Central Avenue, • 10N to Northtown Transit Center via Central Avenue and Monroe Street north of 53rd Avenue, and • 10U to Northtown Transit Center via University Avenue north of 53rd Avenue. Additionally, Route 59 serves this corridor, providing peak-only limited stop service on Central Avenue between 53rd Avenue and downtown Minneapolis. A few Route 59 trips also provide service north of 53rd Avenue. Route 10 would be modified to operate as a single pattern, and Route 59 would be eliminated as part of the Central arterial BRT concept plan. The Central arterial BRT concept route mirrors the structure of existing Route 10U and would operate between downtown Minneapolis and Northtown Transit Center via Central Avenue to 53rd Avenue and via University Avenue north of 53rd Avenue (Figure 5). The arterial BRT concept would operate every 10 minutes for most of the day (Table 8). Fifteen buses would be required to provide this level of service. Route 10 would continue to operate on a path similar to the existing Route 10N branch, maintaining service through Spring Lake Park and Fridley along Central and Monroe Avenues north of 53rd Avenue. Modified Route 10 would operate approximately every 30 minutes throughout most of the day, seven days per week, requiring six buses. Central Concept Service Plan Route Early AM Peak Midday PM Peak Evening Night Central BRT 20 10 10 10 20 30 Route 10 - 30 30 30 30 - 10 Item 3. Network Next | Arterial BRT Corridor Concepts: Preliminary Alignments, Stations, and Service Plans 48 Central Central Concept Station Locations Station Intersection Intersection Location Station Spacing (miles) Connecting Service Comments 1 Northtown Transit Center •Following: 0.9 25, 805, 831 Shopping and commercial center 2 University & 81st Ave •Preceding: 0.9 •Following: 0.6 3 University & Osborne Rd •Preceding: 0.6 •Following: 0.5 4 University & 73rd Ave •Preceding: 0.5 •Following: 0.5 5 University & 69th Ave •Preceding: 0.5 •Following: 0.5 New development to the east, city hall 6 University & Mississippi St •Preceding: 0.5 •Following: 0.5 7 University & 61st Ave •Preceding: 0.5 •Following: 0.5 Northstar Fridley Station adjacency Fridley High School 8 University & 57th Ave •Preceding: 0.5 •Following: 0.5 9 University & 53rd Ave •Preceding: 0.5 •Following: 0.7 824 10 Central & 53rd Ave •Preceding: 0.7 •Following: 0.5 Station closer to Target 11 Central & 49th Ave •Preceding: 0.5 •Following: 0.5 Consider Hilltop mobile home community Columbia Heights High School 12 Central & 45th Ave •Preceding: 0.5 •Following: 0.5 Consider Hilltop mobile home community 13 Central & 41st Ave •Preceding: 0.5 •Following: 0.5 11, 801 Remove pull-in to transit center 14 Central & 37th Ave •Preceding: 0.5 •Following: 0.5 11 Item 3. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA SECTION WORK SESSION MEETING DATE APRIL 5, 2021 ITEM: 37TH AVENUE PROPOSED LAYOUT – 30% DESIGN DEPARTMENT: Public Works BY/DATE: Kevin Hansen/April 1, 2021 CITY STRATEGY: (please indicate areas that apply by adding a bold “X” in front of the selected text below) X_Safe Community _Diverse, Welcoming “Small-Town” Feel _Economic Strength _Excellent Housing/Neighborhoods _Equity and Affordability X_Strong Infrastructure/Public Services _Opportunities for Play and Learning _Engaged, Multi-Generational, Multi-Cultural Population BACKGROUND: In August of 2020, the Council approved the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the City of Minneapolis for the design of 37th Avenue Reconstruction project. The JPA provided that Minneapolis would be the lead on the project and work scope would be layout plans and design to what is considered a 30% level plan set. Since that time the project team has been meeting biweekly (or more frequently) for planning and design review. A summary is provided as follows: September, 2020  Kick-off meeting with Minneapolis and S.E.H.  Topographic and utility survey by City of Minneapolis  Traffic data collection at major intersections including video recording to document traffic and pedestrian counts  Wetland delineation October and November, 2020  Plans for Public Engagement began  Traffic study results discussed  Design issues flagged December, 2020  Preliminary design prepared for review and discussion  Draft Public Engagement website available for review January, 2021  Kick-off meeting with MnDOT for Federal Aid procedures and requirements  Public Engagement website online  Website and open house posted on City’s website. Postcards mailed to property and business owners from Central Avenue to Stinson Boulevard between 37th Avenue and 39th Avenue  Virtual Open House: January 28th from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. 12 Item 4. City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2 February, 2021  Incorporated Open House comments into plans (comments received – attached)  Discussed train movements and impacts on traffic flow  Reviewed alternatives for intersections at Central Avenue, Hart Boulevard , and Central Avenue March, 2021  Coordination meetings with CP Rail and private utility companies (review comments – attached)  Meetings with City stakeholders to finalize layout for 30% design Future meetings will be to incorporate comments by City stakeholders and conduct a Virtual Open House in April including more developed plans. Two alternatives have been developed as detailed below: ALTERNATE 1 – TRAIL ON NORTH SIDE (preferred alternative) With this alternate, the street centerline would shift approximately 4’ to the south. This provides additional area between the trail and the right -of-way, reducing the number and height of retaining walls adjacent to private property and maintains a 9’ boulevard for safety and snow storage. The sidewalk on the south side of the street would remain in approximately the same location. The boulevard area between the sidewalk on the south side and the street would increase from 4’ to 9’, providing more safety for pedestrians and snow storage in the boulevard-reducing the windrow on the sidewalk. Other advantages of constructing the trail on the north side incl ude the following:  A more direct connection to other trails, 37 th Avenue from University Avenue to Central Avenue and Stinson Boulevard from 37th Place to 40th Avenue.  Fewer cross-streets for trail users to cross.  Room to construct 3 lanes for west bound t raffic at Central Avenue (right turn, straight, left turn) with less impact to adjacent properties.  Wider boulevard on the north side at the railroad crossing, providing an opportunity to have trail cross the RR tracks at a right angle. ALTERNATE 2 – TRAIL ON SOUTH SIDE With this alternate, the street centerline would remain in the same location. The 2’ clear zone for the trail would be closer to the adjacent properties than the existing sidewalk. Boulevard widths would remain at 9’ on both the south and north sides for increased safety of trail/sidewalk users and snow storage. The most significant advantage of constructing the trail on the south side is fewer and shorter retaining walls than on the north side. Following the second open house in April, the preferred alternative will be developed to the 30% stage in May. Staff has been reviewing an RFP to be issued by Minneapolis which will provide final design and construction engineering services. The final design is tentatively scheduled from late summe r to spring 2022, with a late fall 2022 bid opening. Staff will be meeting with Minneapolis staff in April to review utility work. With the scope of work, it is anticipated that the utility construction should occur in 2022. ATTACHMENT(S): Intersection Layouts 3.31.2021 Open House Comments Agency Review Comments 13 Item 4. R E S E R V O I R B L V D T Y L E R S T N E NE TYLER ST NE CENTRAL AVE 36 6 5 37 0 1 36 6 5 37 1 7 372 1 372 7 961 37 0 4 370 8 371 0 37 1 4 36 7 0 36 6 4 36 5 8 KO R E A N F I R S T BA P T I S T C H U R C H CV S >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > X C XC XC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> X > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > U W W W W WWW SA G W W W G F ST SA W W W U SA ST W ST SA ST SA ST G ST SA SA W U G ST ST TB X ST SA ST W SA U ST ST W W 3/ 3 1 / 2 0 2 1 Save: 3/30/2021 8:32 AM sgeraghty Plot: 3/31/2021 12:40 PM X:\KO\M\MNPLS\156807\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\10-Civil\cad\dwg\MN156807GM_Alt 1.dwg 0 fe e t sc a l e 20 40 20 10 FI L E N O . DA T E : 15 6 8 0 7 37 T H C E N T R A L I N T E R S E C T I O N 37 T H A V E R E C O N S T R C U T I O N PR O J . L O C A T I O N 6. 0 0 9. 0 0 13 . 0 0 10 . 0 0 11 . 0 0 4. 5 0 10 . 0 0 2. 0 0 3. 6 2 5: 1 5 : 1 30 : 1 30 : 1 NE E D 2 ' C L E A R Z O N E . E I T H E R LO W E R I N G T H E V A U L T O R 8 ' TR A I L W I T H 2 ' C L E A R ( S T R I P I N G ) 15 0 . 0 0 11 . 0 0 6" C U R B 14 It e m 4 . 37 T H A V E N E 37 T H A V E N E HART B L V D 3 7 T H P L N E NE HOLLYWOOD AVE NE MCKINLEY ST 21 0 5 23 0 1 36 3 9 36 4 6 36 4 2 36 3 8 36 4 7 36 5 0 36 4 2 36 3 8 18 1 6 NE BENJAMIN ST TO P V A L U E L I Q U O R SP E E D W A Y MI D W E S T A U T O R E P A I R CP CP CP > > > > >> >> > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CP CP CP W G W GG SA G SA U W G W G SA G W SA W W W W W ST W ST TB X SA SA ST W GW W CP CP CO N S I D E R P U L L I N G T R A I L C R O S S I N G B A C K A T I N T E R S E C T I O N ? (M N D O T B I K E D E S I G N M A N U A L P A G E 5 - 2 9 ) CO N S I D E R A R A I S E D I N T E R S E C T I O N ? 3/ 3 0 / 2 0 2 1 Save: 3/30/2021 7:44 AM sgeraghty Plot: 3/30/2021 7:47 AM X:\KO\M\MNPLS\156807\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\10-Civil\cad\dwg\MN156807GM_Alt 1.dwg 0 fe e t sc a l e 20 40 20 10 FI L E N O . DA T E : 15 6 8 0 7 RA I L R O A D C R O S S I N G 37 T H A V E R E C O N S T R C U T I O N PR O J . L O C A T I O N 20 m p h 12 m p h PR O P O S E D C U R B L I N E MA T C H E S E X I S T I N G C U R B L I N E SI D E W A L K S H O U L D B E C L E A R O F S I G N A L A N D AR M . N E E D S H O T S O N T H E M T O B E S U R E . EX T E N D C R O S S I N G P A N E L S 1' C E N T E R L I N E O F F S E T T O M A T C H E X I S T I N G S O U T H C U R B LI N E T O A V O I D C O N F L I C T W I T H T H E S I G N A L A N D A R M 20 m p h c u r v e s l a y o u t CR O S S I N G A T ~ 6 0 ° A N G L E 15 . 0 0 15 It e m 4 . Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110-5196 SEH is 100% employee-owned | sehinc.com | 651.490.2000 | 800.325.2055 | 888.908.8166 fax MEMORANDUM TO: Forrest Hardy (City of Minneapolis), Kevin Hansen (City of Columbia Heights) FROM: Kristin Petersen, Adrian Diaz, Mike Kotila DATE: March 1, 2021 RE: Summary of Community Engagement (December 2020 to February 2021) 37th Avenue Reconstruction Project - Community Engagement Summary Engagement focused on informing the public of the project and received public input on the future of 37th Ave NE. This memo documents traffic on the 37th Ave NE Reconstruction Project website (37thAveNE.com), as well as details and comments received on the online interactive map and during the January 28, 2021 online virtual open house sessions. Space intentionally left blank. 16 Item 4. Engagement Summary – 37th Ave NE Reconstruction Project Page 2 PROJECT WEBSITE The project website provided background about the 37th Avenue Reconstruction Project and ways the public can provide their feedback and comments. Information on the website also included an overview of existing conditions on 37th Avenue NE today, details about a future shared-used trail, information about upcoming meetings and events, and contact information for project staff. Between December 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021, there were a total 557 unique visitors to the project website. Top sources of website traffic were: o 355 went to the site directly o 63 were directed through Facebook o 19 were directed from Google o 18 were directed from the City of Minneapolis website o 102 were from other sources Screenshots of Website & Comment Period Analytics 17 Item 4. Engagement Summary – 37th Ave NE Reconstruction Project Page 3 ONLINE OPEN HOUSE MEETINGS Two online open house events were hosted on January 2021 to provide the public an opportunity to learn more about the 37th Avenue NE Reconstruction project and ask questions and provide comments to project staff. Meeting Information • Audience: Adjacent property owners, commuters, and residents surrounding the project area • Date: 01/28/2021 • Duration: o Session 1 - 6:30 to 7:30 pm o Session 2 - 7:30 to 8:30 pm • Format: To follow MN Department of Health guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic, the project team held two virtual public open house meetings that included live presentations with Q&A sessions. The presentation included information on the proposed design and project schedule. • Location: GoTo Meeting and www.37thavene.com Meeting Notifications • Postcard/flier invitations were mailed directly to 912 properties surrounding the project area. Postcards directed the public to the project website that contained meeting and login information • Meeting information was posted on the project website • Posted on both Cities’ Facebook o Paid Facebook ads for surrounding residents were posted Attendance • A total of 60 attendees and elected officials participated in the Virtual Open House events. The following staff members were also present to facilitate the events and address questions and comments: 1) Kevin Hansen – City of Columbia Heights 2) Kathy Young – City of Columbia Heights 3) Forrest Hardy – City of Minneapolis 4) Alebel Mehari – City of Minneapolis 5) Lisa Goddard – City of Minneapolis 6) Mike Kotila – SEH 7) Adrian Diaz – SEH 8) Kristin Petersen – SEH Open House Comments and Questions Comments were received during the Q&A sessions that followed the live presentations at the virtual open house meetings. The comments received during the virtual open house are listed below. The public was also able to send additional comments and questions to City staff after the events. Open House Q&A Comments (Presentation 1) • Will residents in the area be assessed or have taxes increased to pay for this project? • Can you explain what is meant by a trail? As in what does it look like in a street? • Will either allow for a much-needed left-turn lane EB from 37th Av to 37th Pl? • Semi-trucks run down 37th - any concerns with driving lane width? • Who will be maintaining the boulevards and 'clear' space? • The southside in Minneapolis has a lot of trees in the boulevard. It seems like Alt 2 would require removing all those trees. Is that accurate? • I'm concerned about the speed limit, it's quite dangerous these semi-trucks come barreling down the street, I hope these changes can account for lower speed limits. Will this be a part of the change? And yes we live right on 37th Ave NE. I'm not concerned about street parking - if it means we have a safer and nicer roadway! • Why was the trail installed on the north side of 37th, on the west side of Central? 18 Item 4. Engagement Summary – 37th Ave NE Reconstruction Project Page 4 • Many large trucks are passing through this section of road. To make it narrow at intersections make it difficult already for cars and semi-trucks turning difficult. What can be done to avoid accidents? • Are you making the combo road/trail wider near the intersections to accommodate the turn lanes? Or keeping the width the same? • Consider ped-activated crossing signals at high-density built areas like Hart & Stinson. • Can ped crossings have a light to push for crossing? • Is there any way we can remove transit of Semi-trucks from 37th completely (similar to Stinson Blvd between Mpls and St. Anthony)? • Do we know what will be moving into the old Unique Thrift space? Does that need to be considered for these designs? • Will streetlights be added with either of these alternatives? • How long will I lose access to my driveway/garage? • No to cutting off 37th • Is the homeowner responsible for snow removal on “trails”? • Please no Cul De Sac! We use 37th place when the train is sitting on the tracks forever. • I vote no on that cutoff too! :-) • Keep 37th place open • Keep 37th Place connected. • By cutting off 37th Place takes from business and not effective for bus transport and kill that area. Please do not do this. • If pedestrian safety is a priority, it seems to make more sense to have the trails on the same side of the street rather than having to move from the north side of a street to the south side. • I use 37th Place all the time to avoid being blocked by the train. • No to the Cul de Sac. Have we considered talking to CP about lowering the grade of the railroad to create a tunnel/underpass under Stinson and 37th? • 37th Place needs to be wide and open as it is • Cutoff would result in more vehicles trapped by trains, idling and polluting. • I prefer option A for 37th place - changing it to a cul de sac seems like it would create more of an issue with traffic and the trains • Is it possible to remove trucks completely? it seems it has caused major damage to the road • 37th is a truck route, trucks move everything you use • Will the speed limit change? • Is adding pedestrian lighting part of this project? • Semis are generally 8' wide • Big safety concerns with the trucks barreling down 37th Ave. I'm ok with zero parking on 37th Ave if it means safer roadways. • It is the only east-west in the area that goes all the way to I-35W. It would not be feasible to eliminate trucks. • The first part of 37th up to Central the semi-trucks turn R on to Central is already too narrow. Just saying. • Trails and roadways are taken care of by Columbia heights if it's on the North side, Can someone speak to if Mpls takes care of Trails? • Can there be parking on one side? • Is it an option to plant native flowers in the new blvds, something other than grass at least? • Why was the path installed on the northside of 37th instead of the south side, on the west side of Central? It would be good to know why that decision was made for that section - as it seems that the east side of Central might have the same reasons to follow suit. • Sorry - was the speed limit question addressed? Not sure I caught that. If there is a reduction of speed limit? Thanks Kristin! :) • But you're turning it into a pedestrian corridor. • It seems like the focus for these improvements has been pedestrians, bikes etc. why not automatically include lighting to make them safe to use?? 19 Item 4. Engagement Summary – 37th Ave NE Reconstruction Project Page 5 • Assessment question was answered from Columbia Heights perspective but not Minneapolis. Can someone address? • I prefer the pedestrian/bike trail on the north side. I would be open to parking retained on one side if the residents there want them. An eastbound left turn lane at 37th Place would be beneficial. I would maintain the connection at 37th Place. I'd like to see a right turn green arrow rather than a no turn on red on westbound 37th at Central Avenue that could be activated while southbound Central has their left turn signal green to get more cars through per cycle. Looks like eastbound 37th west of Central would be restriped to two turn lanes? Also, I would like to see the intersection of Central and 37th to be redone as part of this project. Several projects have resurfaced up to the intersection but not including the intersection, and it is in poor condition. • Is there a range of costs for those assessments? • Who all is included in assessments? Only those residents whose homes are on 37th? • Would bump-outs be considered for bus stops? etc. • The storm water treatments look great on the recent construction south of 37 Ave. • Any changes in regard to stormwater management and Hart Lake? • I would not be in favor of a reduction in speed limits on 37th Avenue. I would like better enforcement of the existing 30 mph speed limit. • Would 37th place stay at an angle or be a sharper left-hand turn? • Forrest - What did your answer mean about who is assessed. We're not familiar with your terminology of adjacent and the other verbiage you used but sounded like side streets - can you be more clear? • Speed limit should be reduced. Dense elder-housing in the area with another apt. developing at 37th Pl & Stinson. • Speed limit must be reduced, it's unsafe. • I would say no to the cul de sac for 37th Place. We really do need it for an alternative to waiting for the trains. • A speed limit reduction would be desirable • I support finishing the trail from Hart to Stinson. if we chose to not complete that part of the trail how many years before we could complete that section of the trail? • I also prefer the pedestrian/bike trail on the north side to reduce crossing 37th twice just to stay on the trail. This would make it easier as a cyclist and keep the car traffic flowing. Access to 37th place should be maintained. I like the idea of a left turn lane from 37th onto Hart. I'd also like to see if a left turn lane for 37th Place could also be added. Would really like to see a pedestrian crosswalk/signal to aid getting to and from the bus stops at 37th and Hart. • Without any parking on 37th Ave, the cross streets, like Johnson Street, will get more parking. That doesn't sound great as someone who lives on a side street. • Disagree with the speed limit reduction on 37th. 37th needs to be the encouraged route. If anything, we should be talking about speed limit reductions on the side roads. We can't have 37th at 25 mph and the rest of the roads in Columbia Heights at 30 mph. • James Whitaker: Northside trail! Excited about the proposed improvements. • I support northside of street for trail. Lighting should be placed for trail. • My understanding is that in the new Minneapolis Transportation Action Plan that all street reconstructions will have pedestrian lighting improvements. • I agree that north side trail is a good idea, connecting to the trail on the west side of Central makes sense. Also, more sun exposure in the winter months. I look forward to seeing how this progresses. Thank you everyone. Open House Q&A Comments (Presentation 2) • As long as there is some kind of pedestrian walkway sidewalk or trail on the north side it will be good. With the few sidewalks in the side streets of surrounding neighborhoods in CH it would be nice to have a place to safely walk without having to cross busy 37th to get to the sidewalk on the south side. 20 Item 4. Engagement Summary – 37th Ave NE Reconstruction Project Page 6 • In considering the south ped/bike path and would you keep path on south side to Stinson if railroad is agreeable to working with the project plan? As it would allow the connection to the Stinson path at a controlled intersection • If it is the Stinson trail that we are trying to connect to, why not extend the existing Stinson Blvd trail south from 37th Pl on the west side of Stinson instead of the 37th Avenue trail eastward? • If the trail is on the north side of 37th, who will keep it clear of ice and snow--city of CH, or Anoka County? • What are the practical engineering and/or cost differentials for changing the center line of 37th? • If the commercial area in the NW area of 37th & Stinson will remain, wouldn't making 37th Place into a cul-de-sac greatly impact customer access to those businesses? • Kevin, doesn't Anoka Co or city of CH maintain the sidewalk along 40th Ave NE? • Train traffic has noticeably increased • Thank you for the presentation. • Thank you for this presentation and opportunity to gather feedback. Looking forward to this project! • Thank you for allowing input so early in the process, and for staying on here so late on a weeknight, folks Please reference the recording of the virtual open house meetings for additional context. Screenshots of online open house meeting recordings 21 Item 4. Engagement Summary – 37th Ave NE Reconstruction Project Page 7 ONLINE INTERACTIVE MAP The online interactive map was open to the public from January 15 to February 18, 2021. This mapping activity provided the public an opportunity to provide location-specific comments that were focused on walking, biking, riding transit, driving, safety, and other topics. Participants were also able to identify their common travel routes in the area. Interactive Map Comments The following are comments received on the interactive map: • I would love to be able to bike from my house and connect with the bike trails that lead to the river. I like what you did on the east of Central with the bike/walking path. I hope parking can be preserved on the CH side when possible. • Trail needs to be continued straight on 37th to Stinson in addition to trail along a 37th Place cul-de-sac • For the safety of bicycles, I would hope the trail continues on the Northside of 37th all the way to Stinson. • Polk is a Minneapolis bike boulevard and there should be some acknowledgement to access the 37th Avenue trail safely. • Johnson is a Minneapolis connector or long term, low stress bikeway and there should be some acknowledgement to access the 37th Avenue trail safely. • Stinson is a Minneapolis connector or long term, low stress bikeway and there should be some acknowledgement to access the 37th Avenue trail safely. • Minneapolis Transportation Plan Strategy 7 goal is to provide wayfinding. This should include signing to across Central and University to Main Street and north south connectors. Some idea how far it is to significant streets as well as to all ages and abilities connecting routes. • Could a ped/bike ramp be added at the end of McKinley St? • Increase trail width from 10' to 12' or more to improve pedestrian and bicycle interaction. This can be done by reducing boulevard width to 6' which will improve sight lines for users and turning vehicles. A center line is crucial for trail use guidance so users do not center themselves on trail reducing trail conflict. 18th Avenue NE trail (Central to Johnson) works well for pedestrian bicycle interaction. It has a 13' width and 6' boulevard. • It would be great to have a safe designated bike path along 37th Ave NE where traffic is rather aggressive. Making it safely to Columbia Park would be very helpful as the traffic drops off significantly west of central. Ideally for bicycling it would be nice to continue along 37th to avoid some steep hills on the North side of Columbia Park as bicyclist work our way to crossing the train yard and Mississippi reaching some very nice trails at Webber Park and Victory Memorial Drive. • work commute • The potholes and roughness on the street has caused a lot of problems for heights residents. • Please keep this street open. It is very helpful when there are trains. Also cars would be backed up quite far without the access. • This is not a road. It is the parking lot for the Liquor store. • Roundabout on Johnson and 37th. • I am concerned about the stretch up housing with small front yards being able to keep parking off-street while also having a bike path/sidewalk for pedestrian safety. • As part of this project can you make Hart Lake more accessible as a feature for trail users. • In general this seems like a good project. I would love sidewalks on the North but there will be some drawbacks. I am in favor for the most part. • I am not in favor of a cul-de-sac I feel this will impact the businesses and ball up traffic when trains come through. • Some form of pedestrian crossing signal here would be useful it remains a bus stop. This is the closest bus stop to my home and for others who get off to access the Speedway. Crossing from one side to the other is almost impossible when traffic is heavy during rush hour. A push-to-cross signal could be useful in this case! • Overall I like the idea of the trail being on the North side of the street since there are fewer intersections to cross 22 Item 4. Engagement Summary – 37th Ave NE Reconstruction Project Page 8 • I think the pedestrian trail should run up 37th place here and not bother with crossing the train tracks • Please consider pedestrian enhancements, such as bump outs and wider sidewalks at 37th and Johnson. The sidewalk on the west side of Johnson near the intersection has a traffic signal pole and sign posts in the middle of it and is a terrible pedestrian environment. • This would be an ideal starting point for the aforementioned potential Columbia Heights walking trail improvements. A trail could connect 37th here, and follow Polk St. to Silverwood Park. • Railroad tracks need pedestrian crossings on both sides of the street here (currently zero). • A streetlamp at the northern intersection of 37th and Pierce St NE would help visibility/identification of the corner as well as provide added lighting and security for children waiting for the bus in the darker winter/spring months. • A streetlamp at the northern intersection of 37th and Pierce St NE would help visibility/identification of the corner as well as provide added lighting and security for children waiting for the bus in the darker winter/spring months. • This is such a dangerous place for pedestrians I am curious how there will be sidewalks on both sides and a possible crosswalk at the angle to ensure safe crossing. • It would be nice if 37th Place NE could be realigned so that it intersects 37th at right angles, not the angle it is at now. It is too broad and almost impossible to cross. Vehicles have a hard time seeing traffic and people use it like it a freeway off ramp when turning from 37th on to 37th place. • The current proposal has 3 westbound traffic lanes at Central for left/right turns and going straight. We already have a lot of issues with people turning right on red so I wonder if it would actually be safer to only install a dedicated left turn lane and then have a single lane for straight & right turning traffic • I think this is in the current proposal but there should be dedicated left turn lanes for both directions at this intersection • Tabled intersections along trail route should be considered and at the very least have zebra striping to alert vehicles approaching or turning at intersection. It also promotes trail continuity. • Driveways intersections along the trail should have the same coloration and asphalt material as the trail to promote safety and trail continuity. • The cut de sac should be further explored to eliminate this pass through. • I am hoping an enhanced Central Avenue and Reservoir Road trail crossing is considered. • Pedestrian Lighting needs to be considered along the trail for safety interacting with vehicles at intersections as well as promoting public safety. • The convergence of several roads here makes it difficult to navigate for pedestrians. • Road geometry needs fixing here for safety of all modes. The extreme angle and width of the 37th Place intersection make turning and crossing needlessly dangerous. • Would love to see additional lighting here. • 37th Ave all the way down to 35w is in such bad shape. Road on both sides needs to be ripped out and redone not just patching it. • Tightened intersections should be considered at all intersections to slow vehicle turning. • Pedestrian lighting is called out in the projects regional solicitation application / Specific Bicycle and Pedestrian Elements / Pedestrian-scale lighting $500,000. The Minneapolis Transportation Action Plan calls out Pedestrian Lighting goals in Strategy 3 Actions 3.1 and 3.3 page 56, • If the lanes are reduced to one lane each way we should have bump outs/shoulders for the busses to pull into at stops to maintain traffic flow • I drive this road anytime I leave the house. I feel it should only be one lane in each direction. Left Turn arrow for traffic heading north from 37th onto Central. Also, more turn lanes in addition to single lane traffic. • The intersection of 37th at Central, needs proper left turn lanes and signaling. This is needed both eastbound and westbound. • Motorists often form two lanes at this stop light, especially going north on Johnson. One will often be car turning right onto 37th and the others are often traveling straight or taking a right turn onto 37th. • We should keep the 37th Ave/37th Pl intersection - it is heavily used and is convenient for residents going to the St. Anthony shopping area to avoid trains 23 Item 4. Engagement Summary – 37th Ave NE Reconstruction Project Page 9 • I am not sure we should remove parking altogether on 37th. Would it be possible to keep parking on one side of the street? I do agree with dropping the speed limit though - traffic regularly goes 40 mph down the road (including semis) which I am not comfortable with. • This comment keeps disappearing so I hope not to repeating something • Be mindful that without the parking lane on 37th that cars will start to park on the cross streets. • I support a 25mph speed limit and designing the street accordingly. Traffic routinely moves well in excess of the current 30mph limit. • With a primacy on non-vehicular transportation in the redesign, can we route trucking/ shipping to another corridor? Perhaps they could route to 694, then South on University which is a major traffic thoroughfare? • I support removing parking from 37th altogether. Existing parking is rarely used; I live on 37th and almost never park on the street. It seems unsafe and green space is much preferred. • Designated turn lanes to get from 37th to Johnson would make that spot much safer. The cars racing to pass on the right are scary! • No dedicated bike lanes. If there must be one put it on the Minneapolis side • Straight driving lanes. No bobbing and weaving like when driving downtown mpls • Speed limit 35 mph • Don't over think the road • It's already too narrow feeling- widen the traffic lanes and limit traffic to 1 lane in each direction, and carve out bike/pedestrian paths and parking on BOTH sides - Minneapolis and Columbia Heights- would make this street feel safer. • A turn lane at Johnson • Do not do turn lane for East bound. It will create a speedway between university and central. If you do that there needs to be more 4 way stop signs along 37th. • Agree--there is space for it, so marking an actual right turn lane on northbound Johnson & 37th would be helpful here. Southbound traffic at this intersection is typically light, so if two northbound lanes are marked, it makes sense for the left turn and straight traffic to share a lane and the right lane be reserved for the ability to turn right on red. • 9' boulevards seem nice, but fear they have the unintended consequence of hiding pedestrian and bicycles giving vehicle a false sense of security that they can safely drive faster. I am happy to see Columbia Heights joining St. Anthony Village and Mpls in pursuing a 25 MPH speed limit. • I would love to see sidewalks • Alternative two, with the walking path on the south side of the road, is the best use of current space and allows us to keep the road in the same location. It will also allow for more shadier, that is more enjoyable, walks on hot Summer days. This should pair with further greenification of the current boulevards in Minneapolis. To see specific locations where comments were made, please refer to map on the project website: https://www.37thavene.com/meetings. 24 Item 4. Engagement Summary – 37th Ave NE Reconstruction Project Page 10 Screenshots of Online Interactive Map 25 Item 4. 26 Item 4. 27 Item 4. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA SECTION WORK SESSION ITEMS MEETING DATE APRIL 5, 2021 ITEM: Purchase of Finance and HR Software (ERP system) DEPARTMENT: Finance BY/DATE: Joseph Kloiber/March 31, 2021 CITY STRATEGY: (please indicate areas that apply by adding a bold “X” in front of the selected text below) _Safe Community _ Diverse, Welcoming “Small-Town” Feel _Economic Strength _Excellent Housing/Neighborhoods _Equity and Affordability X Strong Infrastructure/Public Services _Opportunities for Play and Learning _Engaged, Multi-Generational, Multi-Cultural Population BACKGROUND: After a very long process, city staff has selected a comprehensive software package to recommend as a replacement for the primary finance and human resources software that the City has used for decades. For years, this upgrade has been a goal of staff and prior city councils. It is a huge undertaking, both in terms of initial cost and in terms of the time commitment; not only time from both finance and human resources staff to implement, but also for the learning curve required of the city departments that will access finance and human resource services through this new tool. As reference, we note that this type of software package with separate-but-related modules for several functions of a business is frequently referred to as an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. In the case of a municipality, an ERP system typically includes modules for budgeting, vendor payments, capital assets, cashiering, utility billing including customer web portal, payroll and human resources including employee web portal. These modules are included in the vendor proposals requested by staff. ERP systems may also include modules for property-related services like building permits and code enforcement. Since the City of Columbia Heights already has modern software for most of its property-related services, those modules were excluded from the proposals requested by staff, other than certain features for special assessments. With the assistance of an independent external consultant, staff reviewed seven different ERP systems. This review included introductory interviews with vendors, live demonstrations of each system, follow-up inquiries from staff, price comparison, and consideration of which other MN cities are using each system. The attached table summarizes certain key data from that review. Based on all the factors considered, staff recommends that the city council award purchase of this software system to BS&A, a Michigan company. If the award is made at the April 12th regular city council meeting, the planning and implementation process would begin approximately May 1 st and the go-live date would be October 1st. Paired with the proposed award of the purchase will be a resolution to establish a project budget in Capital Equipment Fund 431 for $300,000 for the initial acquisition and implementation. Ongoing annual software support costs of the system are $23,000. The annual costs will be paid from the finance and administration operating budgets, and are comparable to the annual costs of the existing system. 28 Item 6. CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ERP SYSTEMS COMPARISON 2019-2021 technical assistance provider Column3 Product:Munis BS&A Software Caselle Connect - Utility & Financial Software NetSuite, Oracle Vendor:Tyler Technologies Bellefeuil, Szur & Associates, Inc.Civic Systems GovSense Founded:1966, Cloud solutions, 2000 1987 1984 2014 Headquarters:Plano, TX Bath, MI Madison, WI Alpharetta, GA Ownership:Publicly Traded Private Private Private Customers:5,000 1,000 plus 180 300 Deployment Model:Cloud, or On-Premise On-Premise Cloud, or On-Premise Cloud Intended Governments:Medium, Large Small, Medium Small, Medium Medium, Large, Enterprsie Pros: A very customizable solution with a modern UI that will have a higher adoption rate. This is the only company that isn't at some risk for being sold and changing the terms of the agreement after only a handful of years. Comprehensive ERP software for mid-size municipalities looking to keep and maintain a premise-based solution, strong implementation and customer support teams. Easy to navigate and relatively customizable. Customer support team appears very strong technically, including in utility billing. Offers intensive individualized hands- on instruction at their Madison, Wisconsin training facility. NetSuite's breadth affords robust functionality, and its scalability gives it long-term value as a company grows. Cons: Usually requires a very long implementation process of up to 18 months. While that allows users to learn one module at a time, it requires a lot of duplicative effort to manually share information between the new and the old system during that 18 months. All current MN users are larger cities (Edina, Bloomington, etc.) UI is arguably dated, but this is somewhat by design to resemble Microsoft Excel. H/R and timekeeping features are very basic, so additional third-party software for things like complex timesheets and online job applications will be required. UI is arguably dated, but this is somewhat by design to resemble Microsoft Excel. Quite similar to BS&A but with a much smaller customer base. Almost all peer Cities in MN that are implementing this style of ERP at this time are choosing BS&A instead. Self-serve employee timesheets may not work well on smartphones. Based heavily on integration with third-party platforms. Bugs with this have caused downtime. This is by far the most custom of all the products, so much that major parts of their proposal could not be shown at the demonstration, because they would have to be built and paid for before they could be demonstrated! Bottom Line: This is the premier product in the market. Unlike the others, Tyler includes an integrated content management system that competes with the Laserfiche content management system used by the City of Columbia Heights. Tyler is even their own credit card processor if you want them to be. No third-party software is required for anything a city might do. Although Tyler can be paired with third-party tools, doing so isn't their business model. So to really get the advantages it offers, it helps to adopt it for nearly everything a government does. A robust, scalable ERP solution for Small to Medium Municipalities, which can be customizable to meet Financial and Accounting needs. Widely-published customer list with a large number MN cities similar in size to Columbia Heights. Flexible ERP solution with a customizable source code and different modules to streamline processes for small and mid-sized municipalities. Slightly better at HR than BS&A. NetSuite ERP may lead the market in financials/ERP functionality, but it is not without some frustrating drawbacks. 1st Year Cost excluding cashiering equipment $365,000 plus $5,000 if complex timesheets and scheduling included $273,000. Includes a fair estimate of the number of days of implementation and training required. Price will be reduced if fewer days or less travel required. $210,00 plus certain costs of webstore. The number of days of implementation and training included in this price appears less than likely will be necessary. $609,000. Proposal provides very little detail compared to other vendors. OTHER ERP SYSTEMS REVIEWED: City staff reviewed three other ERP systems in addition to the four listed above. These other systems were eliminated relatively early in the review process, before the final review that provided the table above. These systems and the primary reasons for their early exclusion are: Tyler Techologies - Incode. This is a Tyler ERP system that has fewer features and is more "off-the-shelf" than Tyler Munis listed above. Although Incode has the advantage of being used by a number of similar sized MN cities, such as Fridley, it still has the same inherent resistance to non-Tyler products or user-driven reporting changes. In addition, Tyler aggressively discounted its price proposal for their superior system, so that the initial cost of Munis was only $50,000 higher than Incode, and the subsequent annual support cost of both Tyler products was substantially the same. Accela -Springbrook. This was a desirable offering with a comparable price to BS&A, and with a substantial number of small to mid-size MN city customers. Unfortunately during the review process, Springbrook was purchased by Accela to add to Accela's other existing government software programs. As as a result of this, Springbrook is no longer sold to cities with populations under 100,000. LOGIS - JD Edwards. The joint powers entity LOGIS is well-established as a benchmark for many aspects of information systems in MN local government. Unfortunately at this time, the ERP solution they are providing to LOGIS members is an older legacy system that is nearly as antiquated as the City of Columbia Heights' existing system. LOGIS has just recently contracted with the Government Finance Officers Assn to begin a search for a replacement ERP system. At this time, it is uncertain what that new system will cost or when it may be implemented. Based on pricing LOGIS provided for their existing ERP, it is does not appear that an economy of scale is being achieved by the LOGIS cooperative purchasing approach, compared to the City of Columbia Heights just contracting directly with the current ERP mid-size market leaders. In addition, flexibility for configuring the ERP in ways that the City of Columbia Heights might desire could potentially be limited in some instances by the LOGIS governing structure. 29 Item 6. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA SECTION WORK SESSION ITEMS MEETING DATE APRIL 5, 2021 ITEM: Fireworks Budget DEPARTMENT: Administration BY/DATE: Kelli Bourgeois 3/31/21 CITY STRATEGY: (please indicate areas that apply by adding a bold “X” in front of the selected text below) _Safe Community X Diverse, Welcoming “Small-Town” Feel _Economic Strength _Excellent Housing/Neighborhoods _Equity and Affordability _Strong Infrastructure/Public Services X Opportunities for Play and Learning _Engaged, Multi-Generational, Multi-Cultural Population BACKGROUND: Last year due to the pandemic and subsequent cancellation of Jamboree the City fireworks were canceled. At that time the City Council discussed “saving” the $6,000 budgeted for that fireworks display and using it in 2021 for a bigger fireworks show. Keith Windschitl checked with the fireworks vendor and the vendor thought a $10,000 display would be the best option for the City for this year. Anything more than that we would reach a point of diminishing return. We are bringing this item to Council at this time as information only and to ensure consensus is still to move forward with the larger show for this year. If so, we will order the display and wait to see how the Recreation budget looks closer to the end of the year. If a budget amendment is needed at that time to move money from reserves into Rec to cover the additional 2021 expense staff will bring it to Council. Thank you! 30 Item 8. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA SECTION WORK SESSION ITEMS MEETING DATE APRIL 6, 2021 ITEM: Properties with Junk Vehicles and Chronic Trash and Outside Storage Issues DEPARTMENT: Administration BY/DATE: Kelli Bourgeois, 3/31/21 CITY STRATEGY: (please indicate areas that apply by adding a bold “X” in front of the selected text below) X Safe Community _Diverse, Welcoming “Small-Town” Feel _Economic Strength X Excellent Housing/Neighborhoods _Equity and Affordability X Strong Infrastructure/Public Services _Opportunities for Play and Learning _Engaged, Multi-Generational, Multi-Cultural Population BACKGROUND: Councilmember Buesgens asked to have City Council discuss the issue of junk vehicles/cars parked on lawns and properties with chronic trash and outside storage issues. Staff from Public Works, Fire, and Police will be at Monday’s meeting to discuss current enforcement practices, problem areas, op tions for the future, and any additional thoughts and direction from the City Council. 31 Item 9.