Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-07-2025 City Council Work Session Packet CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Amáda Márquez Simula Councilmembers Connie Buesgens Rachel James Justice Spriggs Laurel Deneen City Manager Aaron Chirpich City Hall—Shared Vision Room, 3989 Central Ave NE Monday, April 07, 2025 6:00 PM AGENDA ATTENDANCE INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC Members of the public who wish to attend may do so in-person, or by using Microsoft Teams Meeting at columbiaheightsmn.gov/joinameeting ID 271 361 336 205, Passcode sd66JM7R. For questions, please contact Administration at 763-706-3610. 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. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL WORK SESSION ITEMS 1. Ice Breaker: What is a skill you would love to learn? 2. MnDOT Layout Recommendations for Central Avenue. (90 Minutes) 3. Medtronic Site Presentation from Lincoln Avenue Communities. (30 Minutes) 4. Franchise Fee’s for Gas and Electric Utilities. (30 Minutes) 5. Rental Density Cap Discussion. (30 Minutes) 6. Fiber Internet Provider USI. (15 Minutes) 7. Review of Jamboree Costs. (30 Minutes) 8. Council Corner. Discussion Items Suggested by Council Member Spriggs: Quarterly Council Open House / Town Hall with Residents. Council Liaison of CH Sports Boosters. Discuss Desire for Permanent Soccer Field in a City Park. Monthly Calendar Sharing. Monthly Event Notification, Attendance and Past Event Updates. Monthly Proclamations and Meeting Guests. ADJOURNMENT 1 City of Columbia Heights AGENDA April 07, 2025 City Council Work Session Page 2 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. 2 ITEM: MnDOT: Layout Recommendations for Central Avenue. DEPARTMENT: Public Works BY/DATE: City Engineer / April 3, 2025 CORE CITY STRATEGIES: (please indicate areas that apply by adding an “X” in front of the selected text below) _Healthy and Safe Community _Equitable, Diverse, Inclusive, and Friendly _Trusted and Engaged Leadership _Thriving and Vibrant Destination Community X Strong Infrastructure and Public Services _Sustainable BACKGROUND: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has recommendations on the preferred layout for Central Avenue from 37th to 53rd Avenues, and will be reviewing those with the Council. Work will be shifting from the layout phase to preliminary and final design phases of the Central Avenue project following consultant contract award by MnDOT later this spring or early summer. SUMMARY OF CURRENT STATUS: MnDOT’s goal is to share their recommendations for the corridor, and to check in with the Council based on agency, public, and council feedback and make sure the project is headed in the right direction. If the recommendations present questions, issues, or concerns - these should be addressed by the time Municipal Consent is considered by the Council later this year or early in 2026. It is anticipated that representatives from the City of Hilltop, Anoka County and Metro Transit will also be in attendance. One item to note that will be discussed is the lane configuration for the northbound direction. City Staff, in addition to other agencies, are advocating for 2 lanes in the northbound direction. This configuration would be either a dedicated bus lane or second travel lane. Considerations for a second northbound lane: 1. Aligns with the 2-lane configuration in Minneapolis south of 37th Avenue (two lanes). 2. Supports bus traffic (stops and re-entering traffic) with the addition of the BRT line in 2028. 3. Allows traffic to by-pass when buses are stopped, traffic is waiting to turn at an intersection, or maintenance crews are working on the street or boulevards. 4. A second lane would only add 6.5 feet to the overall crossing distance for pedestrians. 5. Allows for City maintenance activities to function ‘in-traffic’ with a lane closure as opposed to shutting down all traffic and detouring under a single lane configuration. 6. Allows for trash pickup or deliveries on Central where side streets or alleys are not available. Chris Bower from MnDOT will be providing a presentation to the Council on the current status of the preferred layout for the Central Avenue corridor. This includes intersection, lane and pedestrian layouts as detailed on the attached presentation. MnDOT work is working towards finalizing the project layout to ensure alignment with the community’s needs and priorities. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING AGENDA SECTION WORK SESSION ITEM MEETING DATE APRIL 7, 2025 3 Item 2. City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None – information only. RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): None – information / discussion only. ATTACHMENT(S): MnDOT Presentation 4 Item 2. Recommendations for the future of Central Ave. Christopher Bower | North Area Engineer Metro District 4/7/25 mndot.gov 1 5 Item 2. Agenda TopicTime Goals of Work Session6:00-6:05 Number of Lanes6:05-6:20 Roundabouts6:20-6:35 Bicycle Facilities6:35-6:40 Reservoir Boulevard6:40-6:45 42nd Ave. 6:45-6:50 Next Steps/Questions6:50-7:00 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 2 2 6 Item 2. Goal of Council Workshop •Goal of this meeting is to “check in” on recommended design •Not asking for a formal vote •Do want to know what we should be doing between now and Municipal Consent and if we should change our direction. Please share concerns, ask for additional information or outreach. 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 3 - Here's where MnDOT is at in the schedule – our goal right now it to try and start to zero in on the preferred alternative for the future of Central Ave. It's important to note that we're not asking for formal Municipal Consent – a city council vote – until late 2025/early 2026, but we need to start to zero in that final concept that we want to take for council approval. - So tonight is an opportunity for MnDOT to share what we'd like to recommend, and to check in on the design based on agency, public, and council feedback and make sure we're headed in the right direction. If we're not, or if there are questions, issues, or concerns that we should be addressing before Municipal Consent, this is a really good time to figure that out. 3 7 Item 2. Number of Lanes •What is MnDOT recommending? 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 4 - MnDOT is recommending that south of 49th Ave., Central Ave. should generally have only one lane in each direction. Through the planning and environmental linkages study and all of the other planning we've done over the past couple years, we've analyzed a number of alternatives and what it really boils down to is that fewer lanes is the best way to reduce motor vehicle speeds and improve safety. 4 8 Item 2. Number of Lanes •What is MnDOT recommending? •Single lane in each direction south of 49th •Why? •Approximately 30% reduction in all crashes and 10% reduction in vehicle speeds •Drawbacks? •Traffic modeling suggests about 30 seconds added travel time through Columbia Heights during peak hours •Traffic diversion to other streets – we saw 13% in 2022 •More frequent road closures for maintenance •Transit speed and reliability (without bus lane) 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 5 - Based on national experience, we'd expect about a 30% reduction in crashes and a 10% decrease in vehicle speeds with fewer lanes on Central Ave. With fewer crashes and lower vehicle speeds, we hope to prevent serious crashes from occurring in the first place, and if they do happen, they're less likely to be serious. - There are a number of drawbacks with fewer lanes on Central: - The traffic modeling suggests this will add about 30 seconds of travel time to a trip through Columbia Heights. In the real world this may or may not come to pass – if traffic shifts to University or more people elect to use transit instead of drive this delay could go down. - We cannot predict precisely what affect this will have on other streets – we have some computer simulations but they are not well-suited to predict traffic volumes on neighborhood streets. The best data we have comes from the 2022 road work on Central where the road was reduced to one lane in each direction. We saw a 13% increase in traffic on some east-west routes between Central and University – this is a reasonable assumption for changes post construction, and we believe with a 13% shift in traffic we won't be creating new safety problems on other streets. Because we don't know exactly how this will shake out, we're deferring any decisions on the number of lanes University Avenue will need in the future until after we see how traffic responds. - With a single lane on Central, there will be longer queue lengths and traffic signals 5 9 Item 2. will be programmed for more "green time" on Central. This makes it very difficult to implement pedestrian signal enhancements. - With only one lane on Central Ave., any time there is roadway construction or an incident the road will need to be shut down in that direction and detoured via University Ave. We should expect this to happen maybe half a dozen times/year. We're discussing how to make this easier for everyone – one idea is digital message signs at key intersections warning "Central Ave. is closed, use University Ave." and including conditions in MnDOT's Lane Closure Manual that forbid ever closing University and Central at the same time. 5 10 Item 2. Number of Lanes (for council packet only) •Traffic considerations •Some amount of traffic will shift to University Ave •MnDOT is planning for this in the University Ave (TH 47) design – we will refrain from making any changes to University until we know how traffic shifts •Will likely increase traffic on east-west streets •2022 utility project resulted in approximately 13% increase in east-west traffic •Increased traffic anticipated to be distributed along the corridor •MnDOT does not anticipate this will create new safety problems elsewhere mndot.gov 6 6 11 Item 2. Number of Lanes (for council packet only) •Maintenance considerations •Access from shared use path (SUP) •Several maintenance items can occur from SUP – SUP pavement section to be designed for this •Utility maintenance •Routine and emergency maintenance activities may require detouring traffic •Streetscaping maintenance •Most maintenance activities can be completed from SUP, side streets, or parking bays •Local garbage/recycling pick-up route •Utilize alleys as much as possible, designate pick-up areas, and plan pick-ups during off-peak hours mndot.gov 7 7 12 Item 2. Number of Lanes (for council packet only) •Maintenance considerations •MnDOT working on updates to road maintenance documents •Lane closure plan for routine maintenance, emergency situations, and accidents •Special signage (static/dynamic) under consideration •Could result in closure/detour costs when closures occur mndot.gov 8 8 13 Item 2. Number of Lanes (for council packet only) •Bus lane advantages •F Line speed and reliability improvements (reliability is key factor, especially in inclement weather) •F Line stops in bus lane rather than general traffic lane •Extra lane for turning vehicles (business access and right turn lane at intersections) •Bus lane drawbacks •Longer pedestrian crossing distance (Adds 6.5 feet to crossing width) •Boulevard widths reduced (6’ min maintained) mndot.gov 9 Buses stop every 10—15 min with an approximately 7 second dwell time 9 14 Item 2. Number of Lanes (for council packet only) •Pedestrian signal enhancements •Leading pedestrian intervals •Pedestrians given opportunity to enter crosswalk before vehicles •Not impacted by number of lanes •Pedestrian recall •Pedestrians get walk sign every cycle •Not recommended in any lane configuration due to impacts to traffic •Shorter cycle lengths •Not recommended in any lane configuration due to impacts to traffic mndot.gov 10 10 15 Item 2. Number of Lanes •What does the public think? 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 11 “I like this option not because of safety, but reduced lanes make the area feel less like a pass thru/highway and hopefully encourage more people to shop in the area” “I strongly believe this is a bad idea throughout this corridor…We need access to these businesses and parking so that we can access them… Johnson and Broadway and Lowry seem to be your models, but all 3 of those plans damaged access to local businesses…” “STOP F%$#ING EVERYTHING UP. DECREASING LANES MAKES TRAFFIC WORSE AND EVERYONE LESS SAFE.” 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Supports reducing the number of lanes Concerns about buses stopping in travel lanes Does not support reducing number of lanes # o f r e s p o n d e n t s - Here's what the public thinks – while we had majority support for reducing number of lanes, there were a sizable number of folks who expressed concerns, either about buses stopping in the only lane or just opposed to fewer lanes altogether. - We heard some feedback that fewer lanes will help support business along the corridor, and some that it would hurt business along the corridor. This is similar to what we heard from businesses when we knocked on doors – folks were split on whether this would be a good thing or bad thing. We want to make sure we're supporting businesses as best we can, we've changed our plans at Bobby and Steve's and MacDonalds to address business-specific concerns, and we'll keep working with businesses to solve issues wherever possible. Please encourage business owners to reach out if they have concerns. - There are also a number of folks who are very much opposed to what we're doing here. We'll keep trying to communicate why we're proposing changes, share data and analysis to demonstrate that we've thought through all of this, but it will be difficult to achieve unanimous support for major changes on Central. - I'm highlighting some negative comments here to make a couple points, but I want to be clear that there was a lot of support for these changes too. 11 16 Item 2. Number of Lanes •Local buses will stop out of the travel lane (in bump-outs) •F Line buses stop every 10-15 minutes with an approximately 7 second dwell time 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 12 We heard that just about half the folks who weighed in on number of lanes had concerns about buses stopping in-lane, if there is only one lane in each direction. This is understandable. Local bus service that remains on Central post F-line will have bus pull- outs, so they will not be stopping in lane. To support Metro Transit's speed and reliability goals for F Line, we think it's important to maintain in-lane bus stops, this avoids the need for the F Line buses to have to merge into traffic after stopping. There are a few differences with BRT that we think make this a feasible option – the bus stops will have a taller curb height so the buses do not need to kneel down to sidewalk level. Also for BRT you pay before you get on the bus, so there's no waiting while people fumble to pay bus fare. On average, we expect a 7 second dwell time for BRT service – this is a video showing what that looks like in our traffic model. This is a simulation of rush hour traffic at 45th Ave – the busiest in-lane bus stop. 12 17 Item 2. Number of Lanes •What do other agencies think? •Council questions or concerns? Do you think MnDOT is making the right choice? •Do you want/need additional info for Municipal Consent? 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 13 So I've shared what MnDOT is recommending and what the public thinks – I'd like to take a moment and open up the floor for other agencies to weigh in on their opinion on how many lanes Central Ave. Should have. With that are there any questions or concerns from council? Does anyone disagree with MnDOT's recommendation? And finally – do you want or need any additional information between now and Municipal Consent? 13 18 Item 2. Number of Lanes (for council packet only) •Typicals north of 49 th Ave: existing and proposed 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 14 14 19 Item 2. Roundabouts •What is MnDOT recommending at 46 ½ and 47th? 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 15 In the Hilltop area we're recommending single lane roundabouts at 46 ½ and 47th Ave. 15 20 Item 2. Roundabouts •What is MnDOT recommending? •Single lane roundabouts at 46 ½ and 47th Ave. •Why? •About 85% reduction in fatal/serious crashes, no increase in property damage crashes •About 7 MPH decrease in speeds within 500' of roundabout •Drawbacks? •Minor delays for through traffic on Central (offset by travel time savings turning from local streets) •Concerns about accessibility for people who are blind or low vision •Less desirable local bus operations 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 16 Single lane roundabouts come with an 85% reduction in fatal and serious injury crashes, with no increase in property damage crashes. MnDOT did a study of traffic calming elements and found the most effective way to slow traffic is to construct a single lane roundabout – this leads to on average a 7 MPH decrease in speeds within 500' of the roundabout. So a roundabout at 46 ½ will provide a safety benefit for pedestrians crossing to the McDonalds at 46th too by slowing traffic down. This comes with some minor delays for through traffic on Central, offset by travel time savings turning onto Central from side streets. Roundabouts also may be less desirable for local bus operations and come with some drawbacks for pedestrians who are blind or low vision. 16 21 Item 2. Roundabouts •What is MnDOT recommending at 49th-53rd? 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 17 66th Street and Portland Ave. in Richfield. Central would look similar. 17 22 Item 2. Roundabouts (for council packet only) 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 18 Image of roundabout concept. Full access provided at 49th, 51st, and 53rd. 50th and 52nd are right-in right-out only, no left turns. Image of signal concept. No access changes from today. The only change to the roadway is the removal of the third northbound lane at 53rd (northbound Central as you approach 694 would be two lanes instead of three as it is today). 18 23 Item 2. Roundabouts •What is MnDOT recommending at 49th-53rd? •Multilane roundabouts at 49th, 51st, and 53rd Ave. •Right-in Right-out conversion at 50th and 52nd Ave. No left turns allowed. •Why? •78% reduction in fatal and serious injury crashes •Drawbacks? •Concerns about pedestrian and bicycle safety and accessibility •Concerns about accessibility for people who are blind or low vision •Increase in property damage (fender bender) crashes – the statewide average is a 75% increase in these types of crashes for similar roundabout designs 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 19 With multilane roundabouts, we'd have roundabouts at 49th, 51st, and 53rd avenues, and the intersections at 50th and 52nd would be converted to right in right out, no left turns allowed. To turn left, drivers would first need to turn right, then make a u-turn at the roundabout. We're proposing this to reduce the likelihood of fatal and serious injury crashes. Multilane roundabouts are proven to reduce serious crashes, but they come with some additional drawbacks relative to single lane roundabouts. They are more difficult to navigate as a bicycle or pedestrian – there's been some research on this, one study found vehicle yield rates to pedestrians with multilane roundabouts without any additional safety treatments to be as low as 14%. Multilane roundabouts also typically lead to an increase in fender bender crashes – we're making a recommendation to increase fender bender crashes to prevent serious crashes. People can fix a fender bender, we cannot fix a fatal crash. 19 24 Item 2. Roundabouts •Case Study – Highway 22 roundabouts in Mankato 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 20 One example that is helpful for comparison is Highway 22 in Mankato – these roundabouts have comparable traffic volumes to Central, and have been in place for 10 years. 20 25 Item 2. Roundabouts •Case Study – Highway 22 roundabouts in Mankato 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 21 •Zero fatal or serious injury crashes post-construction •Property damage crashes nearly quadrupled A 10-year before and after study found that the roundabouts were successful in completely preventing fatal and serious injury crashes, but at the cost of nearly quadrupling property damage crashes. Fender benders are bad and should be avoided, but in this instance it was viewed as a worthwhile tradeoff. The Mankato area now has 27 roundabouts with more in the planning stage. We don't expect to see property damage crashes at the same rate they did in Mankato – the statewide average for this type of roundabout is a 75% increase – but I want to share this example because even though property damage crashes quadrupled, Mankato has gone all in on roundabouts, they view this as a success. 21 26 Item 2. 205 71 62 100 76 I think roundabouts have some advantages and think they’re worth exploring I have concerns about multi-lane roundabouts, but think single-lane roundabouts work well I would need to learn more about roundabouts, or I think MnDOT needs to do more education for drivers about roundabouts I have questions or concerns about bicycle or pedestrian safety at roundabouts I’m opposed to roundabouts and think they’re a mistake 0 50 100 150 200 250 Roundabouts •What does the public think? 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 22 “Roundabouts are less safe for crossing pedestrians who do not have clear windows of go/no go time and cause issues with traffic coming around the circle not having good visibility of crossing people.” “If people knew how to use them or might be a good idea. But people do not and it's too busy of a street to have them.” # o f r e s p o n s e s •Generally we saw pretty broad support for roundabouts – the public generally seems to think it will help slow traffic and make Central Ave. safer •We asked a number of leading questions trying to understand what specific concerns the public has around roundabouts. They fell equally into a few different categories: •Folks who are OK with single-lane roundabouts but have concerns about multilane roundabouts •Folks who want more education around roundabouts, for themselves or others •Those who have concerns about ped/bike safety •A minority of people who are entirely opposed to roundabouts •I wanted to highlight a couple comments on education and nonmotorized safety because I think we can do something about that 22 27 Item 2. Roundabouts •Bicycle/Pedestrian concerns •All multilane crossings will have flashing yellow lights at a minimum – 85% yield rate •MnDOT exploring additional safety countermeasures – type TBD •Will engage State Services for the Blind to improve accessibility •Education needs •MnDOT will commit to a multiyear education campaign for multilane roundabouts if they are selected 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 23 Example raised crosswalk detail from NY State DOT •When it comes to bicycle/pedestrian concerns we will commit to having flashing yellow lights at every multilane roundabout crossing. At the 66th Street roundabouts in Richfield, that pedestrian study we looked at earlier found a 85%+ yield rate with flashing yellow lights activated. 85% yield rate is good – but we're not going to stop there, we want to bring additional safety countermeasures, but we don't know what that is yet. We're looking nationwide for best practices, one example is New York State, which uses raised crosswalks at roundabouts, that's something we're looking into using in Minnesota. We're also going to work with the State Services for the Blind to try and determine how we can make roundabouts more accessible for pedestrians who are blind or low vision. •We know multilane roundabouts are a major change, and there aren't too many in the immediate vicinity. If we move forward with multilane roundabouts we'll commit to a multiyear education campaign to help inform how to correctly use multilane roundabouts. 23 28 Item 2. Roundabouts •What do other agencies think? •Council questions or concerns? Do you think MnDOT is making the right choice? •Do you want/need additional info for Municipal Consent? 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 24 Any thoughts on roundabouts from other agencies? Councilmembers – any questions or concerns about the MnDOT recommended approach? Are there are additional things we should look into before Municipal Consent? 24 29 Item 2. Bicycle Facility •What is MnDOT recommending? •Shared-use path •Why? •MnDOT defers decisions on type of bicycle facility to local agencies as they ultimately are responsible for maintenance •Council questions or concerns? Do you think we are making the right choice? 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 25 Colored concrete shared-use path; 66th Street in Richfield - MnDOT is recommending that we provide a safe space for people bicycling along Central Ave., but as MnDOT doesn't maintain bike facilities we don't typically prescribe a specific design, we look to the agency responsible for maintenance to decide. - In the case of Columbia Heights we understand that Public Works would prefer a shared use path – this is similar to what's on 37th Ave. MnDOT can build a colored concrete path instead of asphalt in urban areas if desired – here's an example from Richfield. - Bike facilities can be designed for occasional maintenance vehicle use – so for example, can be plowed with a pickup truck. Or if there's an unusual situation where an emergency or maintenance vehicle needs to, it can jump the curb and use the bikeway. - Typically this is 8' minimum width. Outside the bikeway the sidewalk can be wider in areas to support a furniture zone (think of things like bike racks, planter boxes, sandwich sign boards, stuff like that). 25 30 Item 2. Bicycle Facility (for council packet only) •Shared used path (SUP) vs. sidewalk-level bikeways considerations •Boulevard space •6’ min grass boulevard provided in all options with SUP •Grass boulevards eliminated with sidewalk-level bikeways •Maintenance •Buffer space for bikeways may require city to clear sidewalks and bike lanes separately •Trucking out measurable snow falls may be required (challenging with one lane on Central Ave) •Other considerations mndot.gov 26 26 31 Item 2. Reservoir Boulevard •What is MnDOT recommending? •Closure of SB exit to Central •Several comments asking about closure of NB rights to Reservoir (remove all access to Central). This doesn’t affect operations or safety on Central Ave., MnDOT not making a recommendation on this. •Why? •Central Avenue cannot be reduced to fewer lanes without removing direct access of Reservoir Blvd to the 37th Ave intersection •Provides safer pedestrian crossings and reduces crossing locations 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 27 MnDOT is recommending the closure of southbound Reservoir Boulevard access to Central Ave. Drivers traveling NB on Central could still turn right into Reservoir. 27 32 Item 2. Reservoir Blvd •What does the public think? 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 28 “I've had no issues with the 37th/Central/Reservoir corner as a driver. I've lived 2 blocks from this corner for 29 years.” 41.53% 7.33%29.62% 17.89% 12.90% I don’t use Reservoir Boulevard and think this is a good idea I don’t use Reservoir Boulevard, but think closing this is a mistake I use Reservoir Boulevard and would be okay with this change; I can get to Central Avenue Northeast via 40th Avenue or 39th Avenue instead I use Reservoir Boulevard and would find this change very inconvenient Other (please specify) “I live on Reservoir and fully support it being closed off. Commuters on reservoir routinely drive past our home going over 50 mph due to the long sight lines on Reservoir…” “The 5-way intersection feels unsafe whenever I use it.” - We asked the public to self identify if they live on Reservoir Boulevard or not and if they thought this was a good idea. A majority of those living on Reservoir support the closure to calm traffic – some asking for Reservoir to be fully closed. - Other residents don't view this as a problem and don't support the closure. - The general public broadly supports the closure of Reservoir. - MnDOT has worked with Jeff's Bobby and Steve's around particular concerns around truck access and cut-through traffic. 28 33 Item 2. Reservoir Boulevard •Council questions or concerns? Do you think we are making the right choice? 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 29 29 34 Item 2. 42nd Ave. •What is MnDOT recommending? •Conversion to right-in right-out •Why? •Pedestrian fatality at intersection •Median refuges provide safer crossings •Local businesses have shared that it's difficult to turn left many times of the day •Council questions or concerns? Do you think we are making the right choice? 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 30 30 35 Item 2. Next Steps •MnDOT works on refining details of the plan over the next 6 months •Share recommendations with the public. Continue property-specific design coordination. •Opportunity for community conversations about the future of Central Ave. - let’s use the next 6 months constructively to make sure the community has a voice and we’re working through issues 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 31 Want to avoid this Here's where we plan to go next – over the next several months we'll work to refine the designs before coming back for Municipal Consent. During that time, we'll share the recommended designs with the public, and continue coordinating with particular property owners to resolve location-specific issues. During this time we want to have ongoing discussions with the community about the future of Central Ave. This project comes with major tradeoffs and while we might not win everyone over, it's really important the community feels they have been heard and MnDOT has been trying to be a good partner. Major projects are hard and communities haven't always felt heard on other projects, want to avoid that here. 31 36 Item 2. Questions? 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 32 32 37 Item 2. Thank you again! Christopher Bower christopher.bower@state.mn.us 4/3/2025 mndot.gov 33 33 38 Item 2. ITEM: Medtronic Site Presentation from Lincoln Avenue Communities. DEPARTMENT: Community Development BY/DATE: CD Director / April, 03, 2025 CORE CITY STRATEGIES: _Healthy and Safe Community _Equitable, Diverse, Inclusive, and Friendly _Trusted and Engaged Leadership XThriving and Vibrant Destination Community _Strong Infrastructure and Public Services _Sustainable BACKGROUND: Lincoln Avenue Communities will be presenting an update on their proposed project at 800 53rd Ave NE. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING AGENDA SECTION WORK SESSION ITEM MEETING DATE 04/07/2025 39 Item 3. GARAGE 40 Item 3. ITEM: Franchise Fee’s for Gas and Electric Utilities DEPARTMENT: Administration BY/DATE: City Manager / April 2, 2025 CORE CITY STRATEGIES: (please indicate areas that apply by adding an “X” in front of the selected text below) _Healthy and Safe Community _Equitable, Diverse, Inclusive, and Friendly _Trusted and Engaged Leadership _Thriving and Vibrant Destination Community X Strong Infrastructure and Public Services _Sustainable BACKGROUND: The City currently allows gas and electric utility companies to use public rights-of-way (streets, sidewalks, and other public property) to install and maintain infrastructure such as pipelines, power lines, and substations. In exchange for using this public property, many cities charge franchise fees as a way to ensure that utility providers contribute to the maintenance and development of the public infrastructure they rely on. Historically, the City has not levied franchise fees on gas and electric utility companies, which has resulted in a missed opportunity to generate revenue for local projects and services. The imposition of franchise fees for these utilities has become standard practice for several cities of similar size and structure to Columbia Heights, leaving the City at a competitive disadvantage. The City does currently levy franchise fees to the cable service provider Comcast. However, these fees are steadily decreasing due to lower subscription rates year over year for cable service in the City. Franchise fees can be derived in several ways. The most common form of fee is the monthly flat fee. Often municipalities prefer the flat fee as both the most transparent option for the account holder and the most predictable revenue source for City. Included in the attachments, is a memo outlining the various fees being charged in cities across the seven-county metropolitan service area. Much like property taxes, different fees are assigned to each type of property classification; residential, commer cial and industrial. IMPACT ON UTILITY PROVIDERS AND RESIDENTS: As evidenced in the attached memo, utility companies are accustomed to franchise fees as a standard part of doing business in urban areas and they can implement fees into their billing systems with relative ease . It is important to note that in most cases, the full fee is passed onto consumers as part of their service fees and is often identified as “City Fee” on the customer's monthly stat ement. FISCAL IMPACT: The implementation of franchise fees for gas and electric utilities has the potential to ge nerate considerable revenue for the City depending on how the fees are structured. The median monthly fee in the region for residential electric customers is $3.69 and the median monthly fee for residential gas customers is $4.00. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING AGENDA SECTION WORK SESSION ITEM MEETING DATE APRIL 7, 2025 41 Item 4. City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2 When looking at the fees charged by comparable cities such as New Hope, Richfield, Oakdale, Brooklyn Center and Hopkins, staff estimate the City could comfortably generate $700,000+- annually between the two utilities. Further modeling would be necessary to generate precise estimates and proposed fees across all property types. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The implementation of franchise fees for gas and electric utilities represents an opportunity for the City to expand its available pool of resources and remain competitive with peer cities. Staff are seeking feedback from the Council on the interest in moving forward with enacting an ordinance to levy franchise fees on gas and electric utility providers. If the Council is supportive, staff will take the steps necessary to draft a proposed fee structure and ordinance language. Staff see this decision as integral to the upcoming 2026 budget preparation process. Action on any proposed ordinance can be timed in a manner that would bring franchise fees online in 2026 to coincide with the passing of the 2026 budget. ATTACHMENT(S):  Ehler’s Memo  LMC Memo 42 Item 4. MEMORANDUM TO: Aaron Chirpich, City Manager Kevin Hansen, Public Works Director FROM: Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers DATE: April 7, 2025 SUBJECT: Franchise Fees for Electric and Gas Utilities Recently, the City Council and staff expressed an interest in exploring a Franchise Fee (the “Fee”) to support capital projects and similar needs for the City of Columbia Heights (the “City”). Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 216B.36, a municipality may require a public utility to obtain a license, permit or franchise to operate on public property. Under this statutory authority, the City may also require public utilities to operate under certain regulations or terms, including the payment of a Fee. Most often, municipalities craft these arrangements as contracts, which the City Council then adopts as an ordinance. Generally, these franchises apply to electric and gas utility providers. The Fee itself may take different forms, most notably as 1) a flat monthly fee (most common), 2) a percentage of revenues, or 3) an amount per production unit (e.g., therm, kilowatt hour). Often municipalities prefer the flat fee as both the most transparent option for the account holder and the most predictable revenue source for City. Generally, the Fee applies to all public utility users, including tax-exempt properties, and the City may use the revenues for any public purpose. Many cities use the fees to pay for roads, park improvements or improvements to city facilities. The public utility will pass the Fee along to ratepayers directly, usually labeled on their bill as “City Fee.” Many metropolitan communities have a Fee in place (see listing by fee at the end of the memo), with the statistical data below: If the City Council decides to continue the discussion, Ehlers and City staff can work to determine accounts by type, options for fees to charge to meet the City’s objectives and financial forecasts. User Residential Small C&I Non-demand Small C&I Demand Large C&I Public Street Lighting Municipal Pumping Non- Demand Municipal Pumping Demand Median 3.69 5.13 24.00 103.00 6.10 3.25 6.25 Range (Min.)0.80 1.20 2.50 2.50 1.03 0.45 1.03 Range (Max.)7.00 17.00 63.00 340.00 17.51 17.51 65.00 Basic Statistics - Xcel Energy Electric Franchise Fees User Residential C&I-A C&I-B C&I-C SVDF-A SVDF-B LVDF Median 4.00 5.00 11.45 43.51 56.23 66.50 95.00 Range (Min.)1.50 1.74 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Range (Max.)7.00 12.00 40.00 180.00 258.00 340.34 991.62 Basic Statistics - Centerpointe Energy Gas Franchise Fees 43 Item 4. Municipality Residential Com-A Less than 1,500 therms/yr Com/Ind B 1,500 > or < 5,000 therms/yr Com/Ind C > 5,000 therms/yr Small Volume Dual Fuel A < 120,000 therms/yr SVDF B > 120,000 therms/yr Large Volume Firm & Dual Fuel >1,999 therms Peak Day Residential C&I-A C&I-B C&I-C SVDF-A SVDF-B LVDF Anoka 3.48 3.48 9.89 42.02 87.53 340.34 991.62 Big Lake 4.00 4.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Bloomington 5.95 11.90 11.90 63.00 63.00 63.00 182.00 Brooklyn Center 1.66 1.74 5.63 22.50 56.23 107.96 107.96 Brooklyn Park 7.00 6.50 20.00 70.00 160.00 160.00 160.00 Burnsville 4.00 12.00 40.00 180.00 180.00 180.00 180.00 Centerville 4.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Champlin 3.98 3.98 10.78 45.33 90.67 158.66 158.66 Chanhassen 5.00 5.00 9.00 20.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 Chaska 2.70 2.85 8.60 39.50 140.00 315.00 715.00 Dayton 4.00 7.00 20.00 65.00 152.00 155.00 200.00 Deephaven 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Eagan 1.85 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 Eden Prairie 4.00 5.00 12.50 55.00 55.00 55.00 55.00 Edina 3.55 6.00 17.00 71.00 71.00 71.00 71.00 Elk River 4.00 4.00 16.00 50.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 Excelsior 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Golden Valley 6.00 7.50 30.00 30.00 258.00 258.00 258.00 Hopkins 3.50 3.50 8.75 24.70 48.55 170.50 170.50 Isanti 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Lexington 4.00 6.50 40.00 170.00 ——— Long Lake 4.00 4.00 25.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 Minnetonka 4.50 4.50 13.50 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 Mound 4.00 12.00 30.00 145.00 4.00 —— New Hope 3.00 4.00 11.00 38.00 74.00 83.00 164.00 Oakdale 1.50 5.00 5.00 8.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Otsego 4.00 5.00 20.00 60.00 80.00 80.00 100.00 Plymouth 2.52 3.79 12.65 50.61 50.61 50.61 50.61 Prior Lake 5.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 30.00 30.00 150.00 Richfield 5.10 5.10 16.50 41.15 41.15 41.15 259.00 Rogers 4.00 7.00 20.00 70.00 148.00 148.00 800.00 Shorewood 4.00 4.00 10.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 St. Louis Park 6.75 6.75 12.00 48.50 48.50 48.50 148.50 Woodbury 1.75 10.00 10.00 100.00 90.00 90.00 55.00 Centerpointe Energy - Gas Franchise Fees 44 Item 4. City Residential Small C&I Non- demand Small C&I Demand Large C&I Public Street Lighting Municipal Pumping Non- Demand Municipal Pumping Demand Big Lake 4.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 ——— Bloomington 5.95 11.90 63.00 182.00 ——— Brooklyn Center 1.65 4.25 22.75 103.00 13.50 13.50 13.50 Brooklyn Park 7.00 7.50 45.00 160.00 ——— Burnsville 4.00 12.00 40.00 180.00 ——— Centerville 4.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 ——— Champlin 3.62 9.80 41.21 144.24 17.51 17.51 17.51 Chanhassen 5.00 14.00 40.00 290.00 ——— Circle Pines 2.75 3.00 35.00 —3.00 —— Dayton 4.00 12.00 45.00 200.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 Deephaven 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 ——— Eagan 1.85 10.00 10.00 20.00 ——— Eden Prairie 6.50 8.50 20.50 89.50 ——— Edina 3.55 6.00 17.00 71.00 ——— Excelsior 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Falcon Heights 2.25 3.50 22.00 200.00 2.00 —— Golden Valley 6.00 6.00 30.00 258.00 ——— Inver Grove Heights 2.75 3.00 25.00 95.00 ——— Landfall Village 2.25 4.75 14.00 65.00 15.50 —— Lexington 4.00 6.50 40.00 170.00 ——— Little Canada 2.75 5.25 40.00 230.00 15.50 2.00 3.00 Long Lake 4.00 6.00 40.00 160.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Mahtomedi 1.30 1.38 14.40 110.28 12.71 0.63 14.84 Maplewood 3.00 4.75 30.00 180.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Minnetonka 4.50 4.50 13.50 45.00 —4.50 4.50 Mound 4.00 12.00 30.00 145.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 New Brighton 3.00 4.50 28.00 185.00 ——— New Hope 4.00 7.00 31.00 135.00 ——— Newport 1.00 1.50 14.00 70.00 5.00 1.00 10.00 Oakdale 1.50 3.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 2.00 8.00 Osseo 1.28 2.07 17.57 102.65 6.20 0.45 2.55 Otsego 4.00 5.00 40.00 95.00 ——— Plymouth 2.52 3.79 12.65 50.61 ——— Richfield 5.10 17.00 41.25 263.00 ——— Rogers 5.00 7.00 45.00 210.00 17.00 12.00 65.00 Shoreview 3.75 5.00 36.00 340.00 ——— Shorewood 4.00 8.00 10.00 25.00 ——— Spring Lake Park 0.80 1.20 8.50 50.00 ——— St. Michael 3.50 2.50 2.50 10.00 10.00 2.50 10.00 Vadnais Heights 4.00 6.00 26.00 120.00 ——— Wayzata 2.06 4.64 4.64 15.45 1.03 1.03 1.03 Woodbury 3.25 3.50 23.00 90.00 ——— Xcel Energy - Electric Franchise Fees 45 Item 4. This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. 145 University Ave. West www.lmc.org 5/15/2024 Saint Paul, MN 55103-2044 (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 © 2024 All Rights Reserved INFORMATION M EMO Gas and Electric Utility Franchising Learn about city gas and electric utility franchising authority, especially authority to charge franchise fees. The League thanks James Strommen of the Kennedy and Graven Law Firm, who is attorney for the Suburban Rate Authority, for his assistance in creating this memo and the model and sample ordinances. RELEVANT LINKS: I. Franchising authority Minn. Stat. §216B.04 Minn. Stat. § 216B.36. Minn. Stat. § 301B.01. Minn. Stat. § 222.37. Minn. Stat. § 237.162. and Minn. Stat. § 237.163. Minnesota statute requires public gas and electric utility providers to provide safe, adequate, and efficient utility services. In order to do so, utility companies often need to use public rights-of-way, such as roads or sidewalks, to deliver their services. Since cities are responsible for the reasonable management of its rights-of-way, franchise agreements are often necessary. Franchise agreements are a contract between the city and the utility provider that allows the utility provider the right to use the public rights-of-way to install, maintain and repair their equipment located on public grounds or in the right-of-way. Cities have broad gas and electric franchise rights under state law. In Minnesota, these franchises are negotiated and take the form of a contract set forth in an ordinance. Cities have the right to require franchises and to include certain terms, such as franchise fees. There is little case law guidance on what specific franchise terms may be required by the city. Accordingly, a franchise can incorporate all reasonable terms within the limits of a city’s statutory franchise and police power authority. These rights are extensive and can be found in state statute and case law. II. Franchising ordinances Minn. Stat. § 237.162 and Minn. Stat. § 237.163. LMC Information Memo, Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems. Minn. R. ch. 7819. There has been little legislative change in the scope of city franchise authority in recent years. However, in 2017 new laws regarding the regulation of telecommunications right-of-way users were adopted. Though outside the scope of this memo, it is recommended cities review their ordinances to ensure compliance with the new statutory requirements and new federal requirements. The main focus of discussion involving gas and electric franchises in the post-1999 right-of-way standards rules by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) is the franchise fee. That remains a matter negotiated with the utility but also one where cities should take care to retain their full franchise fee rights in the franchise agreement itself. 46 Item 4. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/15/2024 Gas and Electric Utility Franchising Page 2 A. Fees Minn. Stat. 216B.361 Electric Utility Franchise Fee, City of Victoria sample ordinance. Gas Utility Franchise Fee, City of Victoria sample ordinance. The city’s legal right to include a particular franchise provision, and the practical realities facing a city when the utility refuses to agree, are two quite different matters. Though a city may have the right to insist on a franchise fee, potentially as high as 8 percent of the utility’s gross revenues, it is unlikely that the utility would readily agree to such a percentage, even though the utility passes the fee through to its customers within the city. Gas and electric utilities remain concerned that, despite their retained monopoly or near monopoly status, franchise fees will harm their position relative to perceived competitors. This fee pass-through also becomes an issue to the residential and business customers who pay the fee. Thus, cities must be careful to gauge the level of local acceptance or resistance to the exercise of their full franchise rights under the law. As a result of the realities of the franchise negotiation and community acceptance process, a “take it or leave it” franchise ordinance that includes the imposition of franchise fees and strict right-of-way management provisions may be difficult to enact without compromise. B. Right-of-way rules Minn. R. ch. 7819. Gas Utility Franchise, LMC model ordinance. Electric Utility Franchise, LMC model ordinance. The two franchise ordinances offered here incorporate many of the MPUC’s right-of-way management rules on such matters as street restoration, relocation for utilities, construction performance bonds, mapping information, street vacation, removal of abandoned facilities, and indemnification. The MPUC right-of-way rules were largely a product of negotiations between local government units and members of the utility industry, including a number of gas and electric providers. By all indications—lack of formal legal disputes over terms—these rules have been very successful. Minn. Stat. § 237.163 subd. 2(b). LMC Information Memo, Regulating City Rights-of- Way. To take full advantage of the rules and to fully implement the right-of-way management authority granted to cities by Minn. Stat. §§ 237.162 - .163, a city should consider adopting a comprehensive right-of-way management ordinance by exercising its option under state law. C. Model ordinance notes Gas Utility Franchise, LMC model ordinance. Electric Utility Franchise, LMC model ordinance. The two model franchise ordinances offered here are the result of a cooperative effort between the League of Minnesota Cities and James Strommen of the Kennedy & Graven Law Firm, attorney for the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA), a joint powers organization consisting of 29 Twin City suburban municipalities. 47 Item 4. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/15/2024 Gas and Electric Utility Franchising Page 3 The models are based on actual ordinances that have been reviewed by gas and electric companies. Because these models are more city-oriented than many currently existing franchises, utilities have objected to many of the provisions contained in these models. As a result, there is likely to be negotiation on at least the following provisions: • Franchise fees; in form, amount, and class of service distinctions. • Fee obligation on perceived competitors. • Where a city seeks additional rate and service consideration regarding renewable energy or infrastructure investment. • Rights regarding city-requested location and relocation of facilities. • The city’s right to amend the franchise during the term. Each city must evaluate the importance of the provisions contained in these models as such provisions may affect the city’s particular needs. One franchise cannot fit all because of the many variations of city-utility relationships, including factors such as urban, suburban, or rural settings; developing versus redeveloping cities; single versus multiple utilities serving the city; residential-commercial customer mix; larger employer versus diversified economic base; the presence of a municipal utility or contemplated utility; and revenue needs of the city. Electric Utility Franchise, LMC model ordinance. See Section 11, Service reliability, infrastructure reporting. Gas Utility Franchise, LMC model ordinance. See Section 10, Service reliability, infrastructure reporting. One section is taken from the City of Minneapolis-Xcel Energy Electric franchise. It introduces an agreement to obtain additional service and reliability reporting from the utility for comparison purposes among other utility service areas. These are matters governed by the MPUC and routinely produced by regulated utilities, but not on a city-by-city basis. This section is slightly different, depending on whether it is a gas or electric utility. Electric utilities have reliability issues such as outages and reduced power. Gas utilities bring the public safety risk of unsafe gas lines when infrastructure ages. This type of information is available to all customers through the MPUC. Putting a provision in the franchise establishing annual reporting may heighten the city and the company’s awareness of where improvements can be made within the city. For cities interested in establishing additional dialog with the utility and identifying its service record in the franchised city when compared with other cities, this provision can achieve greater awareness and perhaps heightened attention by the utility to the needs of the city. 48 Item 4. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/15/2024 Gas and Electric Utility Franchising Page 4 III. Further assistance James Strommen 612.337.9233 jstrommen@Kennedy- Graven.com. Patricia Beety, LMC General Counsel 651.281.1270 800.925.1122 pbeety@lmc.org 49 Item 4. ITEM: Rental Density Cap Discussion DEPARTMENT: Community Development BY/DATE: CD Director / 04-01-2025 CORE CITY STRATEGIES: (please indicate areas that apply by adding an “X” in front of the selected text below) _Healthy and Safe Community _Equitable, Diverse, Inclusive, and Friendly _Trusted and Engaged Leadership XThriving and Vibrant Destination Community _Strong Infrastructure and Public Services _Sustainable BACKGROUND: At the February 2nd work session, the City Council discussed the intent to review the current rental density cap regulations and exemption process. Staff have brought forward a few ideas that were discussed at the work session as possible revisions to the cap. In 2023, the City established a rental density cap via Ordinance 1685. The purpose of the cap being to prevent an over-concentration of rental properties, promote a balanced residential housing stock, and preserve homeownership opportunities. In general, staff believe that the cap continues to have a positive effect on these overall goals. However, staff continuously receive calls and requests for rental licenses that do not meet the cap. While a limited number of applicants request exemptions, those who qualify have been granted them. Given that nearly two years have passed since the implementation of the program, staff agree that this is an appropriate time to revisit the regulations and discuss possible adjustments. In reviewing the data related to the cap, staff found that few of the approved exemptions have followed through with obtaining a rental license. Of the 13 exemptions approved, only 5 have resulted in licensed rentals. Additionally, most calls staff receive come from potential investors who are aware of the cap and are inquiring whether a specific property can be licensed as a rental. Density cap numbers Applied Approved Licensed 2024 11 7 5 2023 2 1 0 Does not include 1 from 2024 in progress Reasoning for those approved CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING AGENDA SECTION WORK SESSION ITEM MEETING DATE 04/07/2025 50 Item 5. City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2 - Looking to rent the property while traveling for work. - Purchased the property not knowing it could not be a rental. - Received from a family passing would like to rent the property until other family can take over. - Tenant issues caused a delay in moving in at the same time their Baby is due. - Received from a family passing would like to rent the property until other family can take over. - Moved out of the home which had roommates. This caused an illegal rental; the tenants are currently under personal and financial duress and the owner will look to sell in the future. - Looking to rent the property while traveling for work. - Temporarily relocating for a job. Over the past month, staff have heard feedback regarding the challenges with the current rental density cap regulations and exemption process. The primary concerns include: - The two-year exemption period may not accommodate certain life circumstances such as military deployment, job relocation, or properties tied up in probate. - Applicants are required to present personal financial or life circumstances in a public hearing, raising concerns about privacy. - Without clear, standardized criteria, decisions on exemptions may appear inconsistent. - While providing exemptions, it is important not to undermine the intent of limiting rental conversions. - Rental exemptions are taking up council and staff time. The largest problem staff have identified is that there was no policy drafted with the creation of the density cap. As part of the council’s decisions staff will develop a policy on the execution of the exemptions to ensure a unified staff response. Staff concur with the friction points highlighted above and have brought forth for discussion the following the solutions to consider: Shifting to an Administrative Review Process Staff have identified two possible approaches, though we are open to further disc ussion with the council: - Maintain City Council review and develop an exemption policy. Qualified exemptions would be placed on the consent agenda. Exigent circumstances involving property owners who do not own other rental properties would be presented to the Council with a letter. Applicants who own multiple properties and purchased a home as a rental will be informed that staff will recommend against approval and that the Council is strongly opposed to considering exemptions for landlords. - Amend the ordinance to allow staff to handle qualified exemptions, with approvals based on qualifying eligibility. An appeal process would be established for cases that do not meet the eligibility criteria but align with the intent of the exemption process. Staff would provide recommendations for or against any appeal. Appeals with a recommendation for could be added to consent, with those in opposition brought to the council. Defining Clear and Consistent Eligibility Criteria 51 Item 5. City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 3 Creating an approved list of qualifying circumstances, such as military deployment, job relocation, and probate. Examples below follow the current trends in exemption approval. Staff are open to recommendations or edits. - The owner is relocating for work and intends to return to the property as their primary residence. - The property was inherited, and the owner intends to transfer it to a family member. - A documented personal or financial hardship (e.g., medical issues, pregnancy, or family emergencies) has delayed the owner's ability to occupy the home as intended. - The owner has been deployed or temporarily reassigned to a new military duty station. Adjusting the Time Frame for Exemptions - Consideration of longer exemptions for specific circumstances. - Possible introduction of renewable exemptions contingent on compliance with rental regulations. - Council approval of tailored exemption timelines. Ultimately staff have developed the recommendation below as a starting point but are open to the results of the council’s discussion. Staff recommend adopting Option 2 (administrative review). This approach prevents homeowners from having to present personal information in a public hearing while maintaining transparency and consistency. In situations where an applicant does not meet the standard exemption criteria, staff would review the case and provide a recommendation for or against approval. If it pleases the council, exemptions recommended for approval could be placed on the consent agenda. For investors seeking exemptions that do not align with the intent of the ordinance, staff will recommend against approval. Additionally, staff recommend increasing the compliance period from three months to six months to align with the expiration timeline for building permits. This would also reduce the number of applicants needing to return for additional approval. Staff do not recommend requiring a property owner to have lived in the home for one year before qualifying for an exemption. This requirement could inadvertently disqualify applicants with genuine exigent circumstances. Last but not least, staff are open to discussion but suggest a cap of five years for qualifying cases. SUMMARY OF CURRENT STATUS: Staff are open to considering changes to the rental density cap processes and regulations and find the ordinance highly effective at achieving the council’s goals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff are looking for feedback before drafting an amendment to the ordinance and developing a related policy. ATTACHMENT(S): None 52 Item 5. ITEM: Fiber Internet Provider USI DEPARTMENT: Information Technology BY/DATE: IT Director / April, 1, 2025 CORE CITY STRATEGIES: (please indicate areas that apply by adding an “X” in front of the selected text below) _Healthy and Safe Community _Equitable, Diverse, Inclusive, and Friendly _Trusted and Engaged Leadership _Thriving and Vibrant Destination Community X_Strong Infrastructure and Public Services _Sustainable BACKGROUND: USI (U.S. Internet) is a Minneapolis-based internet service provider known for delivering high-speed fiber-optic broadband to both residential and commercial customers throughout the Twin Cities metro area. Founded in 1995, USI has established a strong reputation for innovation, customer service, and community partnerships. The company operates one of the region’s most expansive and advanced fiber netw orks, offering symmetrical gigabit speeds and scalable solutions to support modern connectivity needs. USI has partnered with multiple municipalities to support smart city initiatives, public Wi-Fi, and infrastructure improvements. Its emphasis on reliability, low-latency service, and localized support makes it a valued partner for both government and private-sector clients. In response to a City Council inquiry in 2023 regarding internet service providers in Columbia Heights, the Information Technology Department initiated contact with USI. At that time, USI shared their intent to expand service into Columbia Heights within the next 1–2 years. Since then, they have maintained consistent communication with City staff and have conducted multiple on -site meetings to discuss infrastructure planning and coordination. SUMMARY OF CURRENT STATUS: USI will offer symmetrical fiber-optic internet—where upload speeds match download speeds—to the majority of residents and businesses in the City of Columbia Heights, with service tiers ranging from 500 Mbps to 10 Gbps. Construction will primarily involve directional boring within the City’s right-of-way, executed in phases, beginning in the southeastern portion of the City. USI will obtain right -of-way permits through the City’s Engineering Department. Due to the scale of the project, Engineering will streamline the permitting process to correspond with staffing levels to allow installation crews to move efficiently through neighborhoods. All permit applications and construction work will be reviewed by the Engineering department to ensure proper surface restoration. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING AGENDA SECTION WORK SESSION ITEM MEETING DATE 4/7/2025 53 Item 6. City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2 USI will notify neighborhoods of construction projects. The City Communications Department will mirror these notifications to residents as necessary. When residents or businesses sign up for USI internet, USI will hand dig connections from right-of-way trunk lines to the building to limit impact on neighborhoods. USI has offered to connect multiple City-owned facilities, including liquor stores, parks, the Hylander Center, lift stations, water infrastructure, the parking ramp, City of Peace neighborhood center, and police security cameras. USI will provide City’s Information Technology Department with a 144-strand fiber handoff to interconnect these sites. The City will pay a nominal installation fee at each location. In addition, USI will offer an affordable connectivity plan, providing 500 Mbps and 1 Gbps fiber -optic internet to income-qualified residents, helping to bridge the digital divide and expand access to high-speed internet. Construction will start in April 2025 and continue through 2028. ATTACHMENT(S): USI Construction Plans 54 Item 6. 55 Item 6. ITEM: Review of Jamboree Costs DEPARTMENT: Administration BY/DATE: City Manager / April 3, 2025 CORE CITY STRATEGIES: (please indicate areas that apply by adding an “X” in front of the selected text below) _Healthy and Safe Community _Equitable, Diverse, Inclusive, and Friendly X Trusted and Engaged Leadership X Thriving and Vibrant Destination Community _Strong Infrastructure and Public Services _Sustainable BACKGROUND: With the 2026 budget preparation process about to kick off, the Council has expressed interest in reviewing a breakdown of the costs associated with the City’s annual summer festival, the Jamboree. This report aims to promote fiscal transparency with the public to ensure that residents and stakeholders are well-informed about how public funds are allocated to the event. The City remains committed to managing public resources responsibly while fostering a vibrant community atmosphere. The Jamboree is a long-standing festival that has evolved over several decades. In its current form, the event is supported by a public/private partnership with the local Lions Club. The City plays a supporting role by dedicating funding, equipment, and staff time to certain aspects of the festival, while the Lions Club provides leadership in organizing the overall event. While the festival provides cultural benefits to the community, it also entails substantial operational costs. This report outlines the costs associated with the 2024 Jamboree. *Unless otherwise noted, similar expenditures are expected for 2025. COST BREAKDOWN BY DEPARTMENT: Police:  Patrol On-Duty for Parade $436.32  CSO During Parade $308.76  Food and Water for Staff $200  Planning and Administration $2,122.92  Overtime General Event $11,383.84 Police Total = $ 14,451.84 Public Works:  *Parade Route and Parking Repair Labor $7,310  *Parade Route and Parking Repair Equipment $9,200  Labor for Event Preparation $8,040 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING AGENDA SECTION WORK SESSION ITEM MEETING DATE APRIL 7, 2025 56 Item 7. City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2  Event Preparation Equipment $7,096  Overtime Labor Parade Clean-up $2,915  Overtime Equipment Parade $2,012  Overtime Event General $667  Event Equipment General $4,040  Labor Clean-up General $6,382  Traffic Control $ 3,529 Public Works Total = $51,191 Public Works Total Without Repair to Streets and Parking = $34,681 Fire:  Staffing for Parade and Overall Event $3,000  Equipment/Trucks Parade $1,175  Fireworks/Standby Equipment $355 Fire total = $4,530 Recreation:  Fireworks Display $8,000  Labor Parade $900  Candy Parade $350 Recreation Total = $9,250 Communications:  Live Stream of Parade $1,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES CITYWIDE 2024: $80,422 *TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES CITYWIDE 2024 WITHOUT STREET AND PARKING REPAIR = $63,912 SUMMARY OF CURRENT STATUS: The City’s annual summer festival has a long-standing history as a valuable community event. The costs of producing the Jamboree are significant, and these costs must be weighed against the cultural and social benefits received by the community. The City has committed to holding the event in 2025 and planning has started with the departments listed above. The event is scheduled for June 26th-30th. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None, discussion only. Staff would like feedback from the Council regarding the overall cost of the Jamboree and its benefits to the community and seek guidance from the Council on their intentions for 2026 and whether the Council would like to see changes made to the event . ATTACHMENT(S):  Police Overview Memo 57 Item 7. City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 3  Police Cost Breakdown Spreadsheet  Public Works Cost Breakdown Spreadsheet 58 Item 7. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Matt Markham, Chief From: Erik Johnston, Deputy Chief Subject: Overview of Police Role in Jamboree and Parade Planning Date: March 24th, 2025 This is an overview of the current and historical role of the police department in regard to the planning and organization of the annual Columbia Heights Jamboree and Parade. The Police Department provides input and advice as it relates to providing safety and security for the participants and spectators for the events taking place during the Jamboree week. The police department does not select or approve events, or manage the inner workings of the events outside of safety concerns (e.g. ensuring patrons of the beer garden are carded for age) Planning activities the police department engages in: • Creating a traffic safety plan for the parade. o Police and Public Works work with parade planners from the Lions group to create a traffic safety plan. o Police and Public Works use vendor Warning Lites for mapping of barricade needs and planning delivery and pickup. (Warning Lites was contracted several years back when the needs outgrew the resources public works had available) o [Historic note] – the police department was an advocate of moving the parade off Central Ave for safety reasons. o Either public works or the police department have submitted a council consent agenda item for the council to approve a permit for the parade and jamboree. o The finance department is involved to ensure the Lion’s provide liability insurance for the event and list the City of Columbia Heights as a named insured party. o Starting in 2024, Anoka County required a parade permit for 40th Ave. The police department facilitated the application to the county for the permit and the Lion’s paid the fee. o The police department is not involved in parade management and has no input on floats or order of participants. The police department advises on the staging area from a traffic safety aspect. • Creating a safety plan for the carnival. 59 Item 7. o The police department worked with the Lion’s in past years to have snow fencing put up around the carnival grounds to improve participant safety by reducing unwanted attendance and having the ability to remove people from the park effectively. o The police department ensures the fencing around the beer garden is sufficient to prevent alcohol from being passed outside the fence. Staff ensure alcoholic beverages remain in the beer garden. o Police or Public Works contact the facilities on the emergency shelter list to ensure they are current and available as planned. o Police attend the planning meetings where departments provide a list of activities they have planned and address any public safety concerns. o Police check with the Lion’s to determine if any additional events have been scheduled that have a public safety impact (e.g. evening music/concerts) and staff accordingly. Other notes: • Staffing the parade is an all-hands function for the police department and time off is restricted that weekend • The 2024 cost to the police department the week of the jamboree was $14,451.84 (mostly in staff overtime) • The Lion’s have a contract/agreement with the Family Fun Show (carnival providers). The terms of the contract are unknown to the police department. Referenced here: https://www.mynortheaster.com/news/behind-the-scenes-at-the-ch-jamboree/ 60 Item 7. Employee Date Total Hourly Rate Rate Start Time End Time Hours Pay Type Status Comments Abdullahi, Ahmed 06/28/2024 140.60$ 41.66$ 1.50 18:00 20:15 2.25 1.5 Cash Approved Parade Duty. Alvarez, Manuel 06/27/2024 374.94$ 41.66$ 1.50 17:00 23:00 6.00 1.5 Cash Approved Jamboree concert Alvarez, Manuel 06/28/2024 62.49$ 41.66$ 1.50 17:00 18:00 1.00 1.5 Cash Approved Parade Austin, Airreon 06/28/2024 64.41$ 42.94$ 1.50 17:00 18:00 1.00 1.5 Cash Approved STARTED EARLY FOR DAYSHIFT FOR CARNIVAL. APPROVE BY NOLL Basurto Ayala, Ricardo 06/28/2024 193.23$ 42.94$ 1.50 17:00 20:00 3.00 1.5 Cash Approved Parade -TN Basurto Ayala, Ricardo 06/29/2024 450.87$ 42.94$ 1.50 17:00 00:00 7.00 1.5 Cash Approved Carnival -JU Baumgardner, Patrick 06/27/2024 437.43$ 41.66$ 1.50 17:00 00:00 7.00 1.5 Cash Approved carnival posted ot Boskovic, Sanjin 06/27/2024 342.15$ 45.62$ 1.50 17:00 22:00 5.00 1.5 Cash Approved Columbia heights carnival. Boskovic, Sanjin 06/28/2024 136.86$ 45.62$ 1.50 18:00 20:00 2.00 1.5 Cash Approved jamboree parade Cortes, Jennifer 06/27/2024 374.94$ 41.66$ 1.50 17:00 23:00 6.00 1.5 Cash Approved Jamboree Detail Cortes, Jennifer 06/28/2024 62.49$ 41.66$ 1.50 17:00 18:00 1.00 1.5 Cash Approved Parade. Dougall, Timothy 06/28/2024 513.23$ 45.62$ 1.50 17:00 00:30 7.50 1.5 Cash Approved Jamboree, parade, assist to other agency x2 uas deployment Dougall, Timothy 06/29/2024 513.23$ 45.62$ 1.50 17:00 00:30 7.50 1.5 Cash Approved Jamboree Farah, Ibrahim 06/28/2024 145.44$ 48.48$ 1.50 18:00 20:00 2.00 1.5 Cash Approved Jamboree Event: Farah, Mohammed 06/28/2024 218.16$ 48.48$ 1.50 17:00 20:00 3.00 1.5 Cash Approved Jamboree Parade Farah, Mohammed 06/29/2024 527.22$ 48.48$ 1.50 17:00 00:15 7.25 1.5 Cash Approved Carnival detail Guzdkiewicz, Anthony 06/27/2024 479.01$ 45.62$ 1.50 17:00 00:00 7.00 1.5 Cash Approved Columbia Heights Jamboree security detail. Approved by Sgt. Urbaniak Guzdkiewicz, Anthony 06/29/2024 513.23$ 45.62$ 1.50 17:00 00:30 7.50 1.5 Cash Approved Jamboree Security Detail Juran, Guy 06/28/2024 218.16$ 48.48$ 1.50 17:00 20:00 3.00 1.5 Cash Approved Jamboree parade detail - TN Miller, Tony 06/28/2024 363.60$ 48.48$ 1.50 17:00 22:00 5.00 1.5 Cash Approved Worked heights Jamboree Monberg, Bill 06/28/2024 254.52$ 48.48$ 1.50 16:00 19:30 3.50 1.5 Cash Approved Holdover for parade Nightingale, Andrew 06/28/2024 444.80$ 45.62$ 1.50 17:00 23:30 6.50 1.5 Cash Approved Parade/Carnival Detail Nightingale, Andrew 06/30/2024 342.15$ 45.62$ 1.50 13:00 18:00 5.00 1.5 Cash Approved Carnival detail. Noll, Tim 06/28/2024 757.22$ 59.39$ 1.50 15:00 23:30 8.50 1.5 Cash Approved Parade and carnival Poublanc, Joseph 06/28/2024 390.56$ 41.66$ 1.50 17:00 23:15 6.25 1.5 Cash Approved Parade/ then carnival. Tombers, Shelby 06/28/2024 436.32$ 48.48$ 1.50 17:00 23:00 6.00 1.5 Comp Time [50]Approved Parade and carnival approved by Noll Tombers, Shelby 06/29/2024 363.60$ 48.48$ 1.50 19:00 00:00 5.00 1.5 Cash Approved Carnival approved by Sgt Urbaniak Urbaniak, Jackie 06/28/2024 400.88$ 59.39$ 1.50 17:00 21:30 4.50 1.5 Cash Approved Parade Urbaniak, Jackie 06/29/2024 734.95$ 59.39$ 1.50 16:45 01:00 8.25 1.5 Cash Approved Jamboree, approved some reports. Vaughn, Troy 06/28/2024 290.88$ 48.48$ 1.50 16:00 20:00 4.00 1.5 Cash Approved HOLDOVER FOR CARNIVAL Wagner, Steven 06/28/2024 181.80$ 48.48$ 1.50 17:00 19:30 2.50 1.5 Cash Approved jamboree parade Weisser, Mitch 06/28/2024 218.16$ 48.48$ 1.50 19:00 22:00 3.00 1.5 Cash Approved Jamboree Wood, Tabitha 06/28/2024 218.16$ 48.48$ 1.50 17:00 20:00 3.00 1.5 Comp Time [50]Approved Parade Yang, Kelvin 06/28/2024 218.16$ 48.48$ 1.50 17:00 20:00 3.00 1.5 Cash Approved Parade detail Overtime $ 11,383.84 160.00 On-Duty staff for Events Patrol On-Duty Parade time $ 436.32 48.48$ 1.00 9.00 CSO Parade Time $ 308.76 25.73$ 1.00 12.00 On-Duty Total $ 745.08 Food/Refreshment Food and water for staff $ 200.00 Planning and Administration Captain Johnston (planning and attendance) $ 1,076.64 $ 67.29 1 16 Sergeant Noll (planning) $ 534.51 $ 59.39 1.5 6 Chief Markham (attendance) $ 511.77 $ 73.11 1 7 Planning and Admin Total $ 2,122.92 Total $ 14,451.84 2024 Police Department Jamboree Costs 61 Item 7. Jamboree Preparation Parade Route and Parking Lot Repairs and Maintenance Labor Cost Jamboree Preparation Parade Route and Parking Lots Equipment Cost Labor Only Total Labor and Equipment Total Date Task FTE Rate Part Time Staff Rate Hours Total Equipment Total Hours Used Rate Total 6/11/2024 Patch 45th Ave 5 37 1 17 16 3,232.00$ Roller 24 65.00$ 1,560.00$ 6/24/2024 Patch alley north of Huset East 4 37 2 17 8 1,456.00$ Asphalt patch truck 24 150.00$ 3,600.00$ 6/26/2024 Sweep parade route 1 37 0 17 8 296.00$ Pickup truck 16 65.00$ 1,040.00$ 6/27/2024 Post "No Parking" Sweep parade route signs 1 37 2 17 8 568.00$ Skid steer 24 75.00$ 1,800.00$ 6/27/2024 Set out traffic control 3 37 2 17 6 870.00$ Street Sweeper 8 150.00$ 1,200.00$ 7/1/2024 Pick up our traffic control 4 37 0 17 6 888.00$ Single axle dump truck 24 150.00$ 3,600.00$ Total 7,310.00$ Total 9,200.00$ 7,310.00$ 16,510.00$ Jamboree Labor Preparation for the Parade and WKND Event Beer Garden, Carnival and Fireworks Show Date Task FTE Rate Part Time Staff Rate Hours Total 5/29/2024 Jamboree pre-event meeting nonsupervisory staff 5 37 1 17 2 404.00$ 5/29/2024 Jamboree pre- event meeting supervisory staff 2 58 0 17 2 232.00$ 6/18/2024 Event setup preparation 1 37 0 17 4 148.00$ 6/24/2024 Locates underground 1 37 0 17 8 296.00$ 6/24/2024 Cleaning of Jefferson building 4 37 0 17 6 888.00$ 6/25/2024 Snow fencing setup 4 37 2 17 8 1,456.00$ 6/25/2024 Table event setup 2 37 3 17 4 500.00$ 6/25/2024 Jamboree prep other 4 37 4 17 8 1,728.00$ Jamboree Preparation for the Parade and Event Equipment Cost 6/25/2024 Jamboree fence installation 4 37 4 17 8 1,728.00$ Equipment Total Hours Used Rate Total 6/27/2024 Jamboree event setup other 2 37 0 17 4 296.00$ Pickup Truck 40 65.00$ 2,600.00$ 6/27/2024 Jamboree event setup other 2 37 1 17 4 364.00$ Skid steer 8 75.00$ 600.00$ 6/28/2024 Jamboree fence installation 1 37 0 17 4 148.00$ Trailer 40 45.00$ 1,800.00$ 6/28/2024 Jamboree parade setup 6 37 0 17 4 888.00$ Mini Trash Truck 40 50.00$ 2,000.00$ 6/28/2024 Jamboree parade setup 4 37 2 17 8 1,456.00$ Earth Auger 8 12.00$ 96.00$ Total 8,040.00$ Total 7,096.00$ 8,040.00$ 15,136.00$ Jamboree Parade OT Equipment Cost Equipment Total Hours Used Rate Total Pickup Truck 9 65.00$ 585.00$ Jamboree Parade OT Labor Cost - Labor for Cleanup of Parade Route OT Trailer 4.5 45.00$ 202.50$ Date Task FTE Rate Part Time Staff Rate Hours Total SUV 5 65.00$ 325.00$ 6/29/2024 Parade route staff 9 55.56 2 25.5 4.5 2,479.68$ Water Truck 2 150.00$ 300.00$ 6/29/2024 Supervisory parade route staff 1 87 0 25.5 5 435.00$ Street Sweeper 4 150.00$ 600.00$ Total 2,914.68$ Total 2,012.50$ 2,914.68$ 4,927.18$ Jamboree Weekend Event OT Labor Cost- Beer Garden, Carnival and Fireworks Show Date Task FTE Rate Part Time Staff Rate Hours Total Jamboree Weekend Event Equipment Cost 6/29/2024 Cleanup of Beer Garden/Event Huset AM 2 55.56 0 17 2 222.24$ Equipment Total Hours Used Rate Total 6/29/2024 Fireworks staff PM/ Beer Garden Cleanup 2 55.56 0 17 2 222.24$ Pickup Truck 6 65.00$ 390.00$ 6/30/2024 Cleanup of Beer Garden/Event Huset AM 2 55.56 0 17 2 222.24$ Mini Trash Truck 6 50.00$ 300.00$ Total 666.72$ Total 690.00$ 666.72$ 1,356.72$ Jamboree Event Labor Cleanup and Takedown Non OT Jamboree Weekend Event Equipment Date Task FTE Rate Part Time Staff Rate Hours Total Equipment Total Hours Used Rate Total 7/1/2024 Trash cleanup of Huset Park 4 37 2 17 8 1,456.00$ Pickup Truck 14 65.00$ 910.00$ 7/1/2024 Huset Park Fireworks Cleanup 2 37 2 17 4 432.00$ Trailer 8 45.00$ 360.00$ 7/2/2024 Huset Park Fence takedown 7 37 2 17 8 2,344.00$ Street Sweeper 6 150.00$ 900.00$ 7/2/2024 Beer garden fence removal 2 37 2 17 4 432.00$ Tractor 8 75.00$ 600.00$ 7/1/2024 Traffic control pickup 4 37 1 17 6 990.00$ Turf Sweeper 4 45.00$ 180.00$ 7/2/2024 No Parking signs and other cleanup 4 37 2 17 4 728.00$ Mini Trash Truck 8 50.00$ 400.00$ Total 6,382.00$ Total 3,350.00$ 6,382.00$ 9,732.00$ Rental of Parade Route Traffic Control Warning Lites and Portable Restroom (PR)- Rental for Beer Gardens, Carnival, and Parade Staging Route before Parade Date Traffic Control PR Labor/Equipment 25,313.40$ 47,661.90$ 6/29/2024 2,104.05$ 1,425.00$ Total 3,529.05$ Traffic Control / PR 3,529.05$ 3,529.05$ Grand Total 28,842.45$ 51,190.95$ 2024 Public Works Department Jamboree Costs 62 Item 7.