Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
cp02-10-2009 cAGENDA
REGULAR MEETING — HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2009
I . CALL TO ORDER — 5:30 P.M.
2. INVOCATION — Word of Life Church
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
5. MINUTES
(a) REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 27, 2009
Action - Motion to approve as presented
6. CONSENT AGENDA (Purpose: onlyfor items requiring Council approval by external entities that would otherwise
have been delegated to the City Administrator. Traditionally, items are not discussed.)
(a) REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
1. HUTCHNSON HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BOARD MINUTES FROM
DECEMBER 16, 2008
2. FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT FOR JANUARY 2009
(b) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES - NONE
(c) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF TECHNICAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SEH INC.
FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN
(d) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF SHORT -TERM GAMBLING LICENSE FOR ST. JOHN'S
KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS AUXILIARY 4797 ON FEBRAURY 27, 2009, AT MCLEOD COUNTY
FAIRGROUNDS
(e) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTING BOARD OF REVIEW HEARING FOR APRIL 29,
2009, AT 4:30 P.M.
(f) CLAIMS, APPROPRIATIONS AND CONTRACT PAYMENTS
Action — Motion to approve consent agenda
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS — 6:00 P.M.
(a) 2008 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PHASE I (LETTING NO. 3, PROJECT NO. 09 -03)
Action — Motion to reject — Motion to approve
8. COMMUNICATIONS RE UESTS AND PETITIONS (Purpose to provide Council with information
necessary to craft wise policy. Always looking toward the uture, not monitoring past)
(a) REVIEW OF ORDNANCE NO. 09 -0523 — AN ORDNANCE AMENDING SECTION 31.20
PERTAINING TO ORGANIZATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA — FEBRUARY 10, 2009
Action -
9
(a) DISCUSSION OF COALITION OF GREATER MINNESOTA CITIES MEMBERSHIP
Action —
(b) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF MOSQUITO MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
Action — Motion to reject — Motion to approve
(c) DESIGNATION OF COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES TO HUTCHINSON COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BOARD (EDA)
Action — Motion to ratify appointment
(d) APPOINTMENT TO PARKS, RECREATION, COMMUNITY EDUCATION BOARD TO AUGUST 2012
Action — Motion to ratify appointment
10. NEW BUSINESS
(a) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF USING WASTEWATER FOR MICROALGAE MASS
PRODUCTION SYSTEM GRANT APPLICATION
Action —
(b) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF REDUCING HOURS OF OPERATION FOR MOTOR
VEHICLE SERVICES
Action — Motion to reject — Motion to approve
(c) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF AUTHORIZING RELOCATION OF JOBZ ACRES
Action — Motion to reject — Motion to approve
11. GOVERNANCE (Purpose. to assess past organizational performance, develop policy that guides the organization and
Council and manage the logistics of the Council. May include monitoring reports, policy development and governance
process items)
12. MISCELLANEOUS
13. ADJOURN
2
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING — HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2009
1. CALL TO ORDER — 5:30 P.M.
Mayor Cook called the meeting to order. Members present were Jim Haugen, Bill Arndt, Eric Yost and Chad
Czmowski. Others present were Gary Plotz, City Administrator, Kent Exner, City Engineer, and Marc Sebora,
City Attorney.
2. INVOCATION — Rev. Kevin Oster, Our Savior's Lutheran Church, delivered the invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
5. MINUTES
(a) REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 13, 2009
Motion by Arndt, second by Czmowski, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
6. CONSENT AGENDA (Purpose: onlyfor items requiringg Council approval by external entities that would otherwise
ave een e egate to t e City Administravr. Traditionally, items are not discussed.)
(a) REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
1. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 16, 2008
2. PLANNING /ZONING/BUILDING DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT FOR DECEMBER 2008
(b) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
1. RESOLUTION NO. 13526 — RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY OF HUTCHINSON
MEMBERSHIP TO HUTCHINSON AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
(c) PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
1. CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A THRIFT SHOP AT WEST
CENTRAL INDUSTRIES AT 900 HWY 15 SOUTH WITH FAVORABLE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 13527)
(d) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF SHORT -TERM GAMBLING LICENSE FOR 3M CLUB ON
APRIL 24, 2009
(e) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CHANGE ORDERS
- CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 — LETTING NO. 1, PROJECT NO. 07 -01 (SCHOOL ROAD PEDESTRIAN
UNDERPASS)
- CHANGE ORDER NO. I — LETTING NO. 3, PROJECT NO. 08 -03 — NORTHEAST TRUNK STORM
SEWER PHASE 3
- CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 — LETTING NO. 7, PROJECT NO. 08 -07 — SOUTH GRADE ROAD TRAIL
(f) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF DELETION OF ASSESSMENTS ON PROPERTIES OUTSIDE
CITY LIMITS
(g) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DONOHUE
& ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR WATER/WASTEWATER ENTERPRISE FUNDS REVIEW AND RATE
5 La,
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES --JANUARY 27, 2009
STUDIES
(h) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL TO ALLOW AME� LEGION POST 96 TO CONDUCT
LAWFUL GAMBLING AT AMERICAN LEGION— 35 3 AVENUE SE AND F.O.E AERIE 4441 -
1000 HWY 7 WEST
(i) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF CONTRACT PACKAGER AGREEMENT WITH GARICK
0) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF DANCE PERMIT FOR HUTCHINSON HOCKEY
ASSOCIATION ON FEBRUARY 7, 2009
(k) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF APPLYING FOR GRANT FOR THERMAL IMAGING
CAMERA AS REQUESTED BY THE HUTCHINSON FIRE DEPARTMENT
(1) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF INCREASING MINIMUM CAPITALIZATION THRESHOLD
FOR CAPITAL PURCHASES
(m)CLAIMS, APPROPRIATIONS AND CONTRACT PAYMENTS
Items 6(g) and 6(i) were pulled for separate discussion
Motion by Haugen, second by Czmowski, to approve consent agenda with the exception of the items noted
above. Motion carried unanimously.
Item 6(g) had further discussion. Mayor Cook questioned whether or not now was the right time to conduct
a comprehensive rate study due to the economy. Kent Exner, City Engineer, expressed that he felt this was
the best time to have a study conducted mainly due to the economic times. Mr. Exner noted that this
contract allows for more than a rate study, but rather a comprehensive review of revenue streams, financials,
operations, etc.
Gary Plotz, City Administrator, also expressed that he is in support of having a comprehensive review /study
completed on the water /wastewater area. General discussion was held on studies /numbers related to
water /wastewater.
Motion by Haugen, second by Cook, to approve Item 6(g). Motion carried unanimously.
Item 6(i) had further discussion. Mayor Cook noted that in the past there have been some concerns about
trucks idling on Adams Street early in the morning waiting for Creekside to open. Doug Johnson, Creekside
Manager, presented before the Council. Mr. Johnson explained that Creekside has spoken with their
neighbor, Cenex, about allowing trucks to park in the Cenex parking lot until Creekside opens. Cenex has
agreed to that. In addition, Creekside will open at an earlier time to allow for the trucks to enter sooner.
Also, Mr. Johnson noted that not all trucks are coming to Creekside, but also to a neighboring business.
Creekside will make their drivers aware of the alternate parking space in Cenex.
Motion by Czmowski, second by Arndt, to approve Item 6(i). Motion carried unanimously.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6:00 P.M.
(a) PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ADOPTION OF UPDATED CRITERIA FOR THE GRANTING OF
BUSINESS SUBSIDIES
Miles Seppelt, EDA Director, presented before the Council. Mr. Seppelt explained that state statute requires
that a public hearing be held in order for the City to update its business subsidy policy. Updates made to the
business subsidy policy include changing the definition of business subsidies, changing public hearing
requirements, and updating the federal minimum wage standards.
Motion by Arndt, second by Cook, to close public hearing. Motion carried unanimously
56)
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES— JANUARY27, 2009
Motion by Arndt, second by Yost, to approve the updated criteria for the granting of business subsidies.
Motion carried unanimously.
8. COMMUNICATIONS RE UESTS AND PETITIONS (Purpose. to provide Council with in /ormation
necessary to cra t wise
Po icy. Always loo ing toward the uture, not monitoring past)
(a) EHLERS & ASSOCIATES YEAR -END UPDATE
Mayor Cook noted that due to the unallocation of local government aid in 2008, an analysis has been
completed by Ehlers & Associates on alternatives for the City.
Steve Apfelbacher, Ehlers & Associates, presented before the Council. Mr. Apfelbacher suggested that the
City balance the 2008 budget as it affects their bond rating.
Gary Plotz, City Administrator, noted that the City 2008 budget will be balanced in spite ofthe 2008 LGA
unallotment. Proactive actions were taken by not filling vacant positions and holding on capital purchases.
Because of that, the preliminary numbers show that the 2008 budget is in the positive of approximately
$66,000. At the time Ehlers was invited to attend this meeting, the City was anticipating a deficit for 2008.
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(a) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 13524— RESOLUTION AMENDING
2009 FEE SCHEDULE
Kent Exner, City Engineer, noted that the purpose of the revised schedule was to consolidate some of the
water fees and add assessment rates. Mr. Exner noted that a comprehensive study and review will be
conducted of the water /sewer rates and SAC /WAC fees. The intention is to have that completed by the end
of Summer 2009.
Council Member Yost voiced concerns with the increase of rates and the assumed inflation. Mayor Cook
noted that large projects were built and the City still has to pay the bill.
Motion by Czmowski, second by Arndt, to approve Resolution No. 13524, amending the 2009 fee schedule.
Motion carried unanimously.
(b) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF BOARD APPOINTMENTS
- SCOTT SCHOLL AND MARY CHRISTENSEN TO THE PARKS/RECREATION /COMMUNITY
EDUCATION BOARD TO AUGUST 2011
Mayor Cook noted that there is a third position open which he has advertised to the Chamber Leadership
program to see if there are any interested parties.
Motion by Czmowski, second by Cook, to ratify mayor's appointments to PRCE Board. Council Member
Haugen would like to recommend that John Rodeberg be considered for the third opening. Motion carried
unanimously.
(c) DISCUSSION OF COALITION OF GREATER MINNESOTA CITIES MEMBERSHIP
Mayor Cook noted that perhaps it would be helpful if a presentation from the CGMC or a member Mayor
would provide more insight as to the benefits of being a member of the CGMC. Mayor Cook asked that this
item be tabled to the next meeting.
Motion by Arndt, second by Cook, to table this item to February 10, 2009. Motion carried unanimously.
10. NEW BUSINESS
-6 -�
CITYCOUNCIL MINUTES—JANUARY27,2009
(a) CONSIDERATION OF HUTCHINSON HEALTH CARE BOARD APPOINTMENT
Mary Ellen Wells, HAHC CEO /President, presented before the Council. Ms. Wells explained that Wayne
Fortun's and Kay Peterson's terms have expired. According to the bylaws, the City is allowed three
appointments to the HHC Board. The bylaws outline a process that is to be followed, which include a
governance committee conducting interviews with potential candidates and then submitting a
recommendation to the City. Following the interview process, the governance committee is recommending
that Scott Schaefer be appointed as the City - appointee to the HHC Board.
Mayor Cook noted that as a City - appointee, this board member plays a dual role with obligations to the HHC
Board and obligations to the City of Hutchinson. Mayor Cook expressed that due to the significance and
importance of some items that take a super majority vote, it is vital that a City Council Member serve on the
HHC Board. Mayor Cook noted that a Council Member has always served on the HAHC Board and with
keeping in continuity, he would like for a Council Member to remain on the board.
Ms. Wells noted that there has been some discussion of increasing the number of board members from seven
to nine, however that would not be considered until next year or the following. Ms. Wells also reminded the
Council that the ultimate responsibility of the HHC Board is to the organization.
Sherry Ristau, HHC Board, presented before the Council. Ms. Ristau noted that she is a city- appointed
board member and she and the other appointees do represent the city. Ms. Ristau noted that the way the
board currently functions is really in the best interest of the organization and operates privately. Placing a
public figure on the board could potentially put a Council Member in an awkward position.
Mike Cannon, HHC Board, presented before the Council. Mr. Cannon expressed that the HHC Board has a
finance committee of which the mayor currently sits on. Mr. Cannon noted that that could be continued if
the financials of the organization are a priority issue.
Mayor Cook recommended that Council Member Eric Yost be appointed to the Hutchinson Health Care
Board.
Council Member Czmowski noted that he would like to nominate Scott Schaefer to be appointed to the HHC
Board. Council Member Haugen noted that the HHC Board Members make a good point in that the most -
qualified people should be considered for the appointment and as City appointees, they do entrust the City's
investment. Council Member Arndt noted that he would go along with the HHC Board's recommendation
of Scott Schaefer.
Mayor Cook expressed that as part of the privatization process, he believes it is imperative to have a Council
Member serve on the HHC Board. Mayor Cook feels that there is a direct connection to the community with
having a Council Member on the FIHC Board.
Sherry Ristau again noted that as a City- appointee, she takes that very seriously, as well as does Mike
Cannon, the other City- appointed board member. The board members want to bring the most qualified
candidate to the HHC Board and their recommendation of Scott Schaefer is in no reflection against Eric
Yost.
Council Member Haugen noted he values the HHC Board's recommendation.
Mayor Cook noted he will nominate Scott Schaefer, although he does not approve of it.
Motion by Czmowski, second by Haugen, to approve nomination of Scott Schaefer as a City — appointee to
the HHC Board. Roll call vote was taken: Haugen— aye; Arndt— aye; Yost— aye; Czmowski —aye; Cook —
nay. Motion carried 4 to 1. Cook wanted to respect the process and the background that went into the
language of the bylaws.
(b) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF SUPPORT FOR THE RIVERSONG FESTIVAL AS
REQUESTED BY THE RIVERSONG STEERING COMMITTEE
5 b�
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES— JANUARY27, 2009
John Rodeberg, RiverSong Festival Steering Committee, presented before the Council. Mr. Rodeberg
explained that the first annual RiverSong Folk Music Festival is scheduled for July 13 — 19, 2009. The
Steering Committee is requesting to utilize the entire Masonic West River Park for the last three days of the
festival. The Committee is also requesting City staff support for mapping and set -up as well as recycling
efforts.
Motion by Arndt, second by Czmowski, to approve support for the RiverSong Festival as noted above.
Motion carried unanimously.
(c) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTING COUNCIL /STAFF POLICY GOVERNANCE
WORKSHOP
The purpose of the workshop would be to discuss Ends policies amongst Council and staff.
Motion by Yost, second by Arndt, to set Council /Staff policy governance workshop for February 2, 2009, at
4:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
(d) CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF U -LEAD SERVICES PROPOSAL FOR THE HUTCHINSON
CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Cook noted that he is part of the McLeod For Tomorrow Leadership group. As part of that, he has
received a lot of good information from Katie Rasmussen of the University of Minnesota Extension Office.
A charge of $995.00 would be incurred for this proposed retreat. Mayor Cook offered to pay a portion of the
cost personally in order to keep the City cost down. Gary Plotz, City Administrator, noted that traditionally
such a session has been budgeted in the Council's budget.
Motion by Haugen, second by Arndt, to not schedule the U -Lead retreat. Motion carried unanimously.
11. GOVERNANCE ( Purpose. toassesspastorganizationalperformanee, developpol icvihatguides the organization and
Council and manage the logistics of the Council. May include monitoring reports, policy development and governance
process items.)
(a) CITY OF HUTCHINSON FINANCIAL REPORT FOR DECEMBER 2008
(b) CITY OF HUTCHINSON INVESTMENT REPORT FOR DECEMBER 2008
No action.
12. MISCELLANEOUS
Chad Czmowski — Mr. Czmowski asked that Marc Sebora, City Attorney, look at revising the current
ordinance that requires the Mayor to make board appointments and revise it to allow any Council Member or
the majority of the Council to make and approve appointments. Mr. Sebora noted that language could be
revised, however some board appointments are set by state law, such as the EDA Board appointment.
Gary Plotz — Mr. Plotz followed up from the budget workshop held earlier today. Mr. Plotz noted that the
governor is proposing to cut almost $1 million in LGA in 2010 and $400,000 in 2009. Mr. Plotz noted that
employees' wages have been frozen and no merit increases will be received. These savings are
approximately $392,000 for 2009. Mr. Plotz noted that in order to cover the entire cuts being proposed, that
could affect the equivalent of 10 full -time positions. The Council had directed that budget adjustments be
proposed at the February 10, 2009, City Council meeting. General discussion was held in regard to budget
adjustments for 2009 to meet the proposed LGA cuts. The discussion centered around potential voluntary
and involuntary layoffs. The Council noted that no specifically- identified positions need to be made known
at the February 10 Council meeting. Chad Czmowski also asked that numbers be considered illustrating a
5% wage reduction to all current employees. Mayor Cook noted that he would like the 5% wage reduction
to be considered as a last resort.
,5 u)
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES— JANUARY27, 2009
Kent Exner— Mr. Exner reminded the Council about the February 10` workshop to discuss Industrial Park
development. In addition, a Resource Allocation meeting is scheduled for February 3` . A sketch plan will
be going to the Planning Commission for their upcoming meeting.
Mayor Cook — Mayor Cook noted that past Council Member Casey Stotts was on the Radio Advisory
Board. A new member will need to take his place.
Motion by Yost, second by Arndt, to appoint Chad Czmowski to the Radio Advisory Board. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mayor Cook noted that he takes board appointments very seriously and he follows the process that has been
established.
13. ADJOURN
Motion by Arndt, second by Cook, to adjourn at 7:25 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
6 \
5�J
Hutchinson Housing & Redevelopment Authority
Regular Board Meeting Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 7:00 AM
Minutes
I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Casey Stotts called the meeting to order. Members Present: Becky Felling,
Joel Kraft and Ruth Kimball. Staff Present: Jean Ward and Judy Flemming.
2. MINUTES OF THE HRA BOARD MEETING ON NOVEMBER 18, 2008
Joel Kraft moved to approve the Minutes as written. Ruth Kimball seconded and the motion carried
unanimously.
3. FINANCIAL REPORTS
Becky Felling moved to approve the City Center and Park Towers Financial Reports. Ruth Kimball
seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
4. ELECTION OF HRA BOARD CHAIRMAN AND AUTHORIZATION OF SIGNATORY FOR HRA
BANK ACCOUNTS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2, 2009
Becky Felling moved to nominate Joel Kraft for HRA Board Chairman and Authorization of Signatory for
HRA Bank Accounts Effective January 2, 2009. Ruth Kimball seconded and the motion carried
unanimously.
5. PARK TOWERS
a. Joel Kraft moved to approve Board Resolution 408 -19 to write off Balances of Uncollectable
Accounts. Ruth Kimball seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
b. Jean Ward updated the Board on the ventilation system project. The goal is to clean the ventilation
system ductwork the end of February.
c. Jean Ward updated the Board on the apartment renovation project, which should be completed in
January.
d. Becky Felling moved to approve Resolution 408 -20 to Adjust 2008 Park Towers Inventory. Ruth
Kimball seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
e. The Board discussed having a Smoke Free Clause to the leases for new residents. A survey will be
distributed to tenants about having the building go smoke free. If there are a majority of tenants in
favor of smoke free a smoke free building policy will be developed. The Board discussed a 6 month
transition period for the tenants as part of the implementation schedule. Becky Felling moved to
approve that Leases for New Residents have a Smoke Free Clause. Ruth Kimball seconded and the
motion carried unanimously.
6. HHPOP PROGRAM
Joel Kraft moved to approve submitting Workforce CASA Application to MHFA and to allocate $30,000
($3,000/ loan for 10 loans) in leverage funds. Ruth Kimball seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
7. FRANKLIN GROVE EXPANDED REHAB PROJECT UPDATE
Becky Felling moved to approve the EFG Kahl Loan 18698 and the EFG Palmer Loan H699 contingent
to Loan Review Committee's approval. Ruth Kimball seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
8. CONSIDERATION OF 2009 HRA FEE SCHEDULE
Joel Kraft moved to approve the 2009 HRA Fee Schedule. Ruth Kimball seconded and the motion carried
unanimously.
9. CONSIDERATION OF MEMO REGARDING 2009 CITY COMPENSATION PLAN
December 16, 2008 Minutes Pave 1 of 2 to (�-`
a. Becky Felling moved to approve Resolution 08 -21 Amending the HRA Personnel Policy to reflect
approving market adjustments and merit pay adjustments based on the City of Hutchinson Pay Plan
effective January I" of each year and approve Resolution 08 -22 Approving Adoption of the 2009 City
of Hutchinson Compensation Plan but implementing a freeze on market adjustments and merit
increases. Ruth Kimball seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
10, OTHER
a. FYI - Planning Staff Information regarding Senior Housing Campus
b. Jean Ward reviewed with the Board the update on foreclosure remediation plan.
c. Joel Kraft moved to approve the purchase of one HRA logo shirt for each of the staff and Board
members. Casey Stotts seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
11. ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business, Chairman Casey Stotts declared the meeting adjourned.
Recorded by Jean Ward, HRA Executive Director
Becky Felling, Secretary/Treasurer
December 16, 2008 Minutes Page 2 of 2 (0 &)
To: Mayor and City Council Members
From: Brad Emans, Fire Chief
Date: 02/02/09
Re: Monthly Update on Activities of the Fire Department
Fire Department Response: The fire department responded to 48 calls for service in the month of
January.
Fire Officer Only Response: A "fire officer only' responded to 18 calls in January, saving the
Hutchinson Fire District the cost of a "general' alarm estimated at $ 3,024.00 and more importantly, it
kept our firefighters on their full time job or at home with their families an additional 270 hours!
Response Time (First Emergency Vehicle Out of the Door): January— 5 minutes 0 seconds
Example of a Few of the Calls:
• The FD responded to a barn fire in the northwest part of our fire district. The barn was on a vacant
farm site and not noticed until flames were coming out of the roof;
• The FD responded to a "hot smell' in a commercial building in the northeast part of the city. The
thermal imaging camera was used to locate a overheated motor;
• The FD responded to a report of a barn on fire in the northwest part of our fire district. The call was
cancelled when it was determined that the barn burning was actually a controlled burn that was not
called in or a proper burning permit written for,
• The FD responded to a two vehicle head -on collision on one of our major highways, where three
people had to be extricated, and one person airlifted from the scene;
• The FD responded to a two vehicle side impact accident on one of our county roads in the
southeast part of our fire district. Unfortunately, one person died,
• The FD responded to a smoke detector activation in commercial building in the middle of night,
upon arrival smoke was present on the first floor, the thermal imaging camera was used to located
a overheated computer mainframe;
• The FD responded to a broken sprinkler head in a restaurant in the SE part of the city, the building
sustained some water damage. The cause of the sprinkler head break was when an employee
struck the head with storage material,
• The FD responded to an industrial fire in the SE part of the city. The cause of the he fire was an oil
line break on a large piece of equipment. The Thermal Imaging camera was used to locate the fire
through the dense black smoke. A large area of the building was filled with heavy black smoke and
required a massive ventilation process.
M
Breakdown of the Calls for the Month:
City:
Residential 5 Commercial /Industrial 8 Multi- family 1 School 0 Carbon Monoxide 8
Hazardous Material 6 Vehicle 0 Rescue 1 Medical 6 Grass 1 Sky -Warn 0 Good Will 0
Mutual Aid 0
Rural:
Structure Fires 2 Arson 1
Rescue 4 Grass Type 0 Medical 4 Residential 0 Farm Building 2 Hazardous Material 0
Carbon Monoxide 0 Vehicle 1 Commercial /Industrial 0 Good Will 0 Mutual Aid 1
Structure Fires 2 Arson 0
Training:
• The FD conducted a four hour medical continuing education class as part of our required 44 plan
for keeping our firefighters certified;
• The FD conducted a two hour class on rescue tools use and safety procedures;
• The FD implemented an "air management' program where the' /. of the air in the bottle is for the
citizens we protect and the last '% of the air is for the firefighter's family. The theory is "everybody
goes home safe' after a call.
Fire Prevention 1 Public Relations:
• The FD presented an overview of the rental inspection program to the Hutchinson Safety Council.
Other Information:
Number of calls that required more than one engine, one IC, and four firefighters for the month: 15
Estimated dollars lost to fire for the month: $150,000
Estimated dollars saved for the month: $6,000,000
• Page 2
(,(L),;._
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Kent Exner, City Engineer
Randy DeVries, Water /Wastewater Manager
RE: Consideration of Technical Services Agreement with SEA Inc. for
Telecommunications Site Management Plan
DATE: February 10, 2009
City staff requests that the Council approve a Technical Services Agreement with SEH Inc. to complete a
telecommunications site management plan for each of the three water tower facilities. This work will address issues
involving policy /lease issues, internal processes, construction management, site mapping and equipment inventory.
Please see the attached agreement for further details. Ultimately, this study will result in the City having an
improved process and ability to recover appropriate compensation for the utilization of our facilities for
communication purposes while protecting the integrity of the tower structures. The cost of this study is included
within the 2009 Water Fund budget.
We recommend that the Technical Services Agreement with SEH Inc. be approved as described above in the not -
to- exceed amount of $23,400.
cc: Gary Plotz, City Administrator
� (C)
SEH
January 27, 2009
Mr. Richard Nagy
Water Superintendent
City of Hutchinson
111 Hassan Street SE
Hutchinson, MN 55350
Dear Mr. Nagy:
RE: City of Hutchinson
Revised Telecommunications Site
Inventory Plan
SEH No. HUTCH 104432
As the telecommunications industry responds to the growing demand for voice and data communication,
a need exists to develop additional telecommunications sites. For many communities, the building of
these sites on municipal properties has provided an additional source of revenue. Developing an efficient
approach to the process of planning, installing, monitoring, maintaining, and tracking of contractual
documents has lagged behind those techniques that typify public works best management practices.
Since the implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEM
has been involved in the construction of numerous telecommunications sites throughout the Upper
Midwest. SEH will translate our expertise and responsive project management into effective project
solutions that will allow the City of Hutchinson (City) to seamlessly move forward with future
telecommunications tenants.
At the Citys request, SEH has taken attributes from its original proposal and letter supplement, to develop
a plan for Telecommunications Site Management that addresses the immediate needs of the City. Our
approach reduces the original fee by $27,500. This substantial savings is achieved by focusing on a
framework to managing telecommunications that can be further developed and built on by City staff. As
we have discussed, the revised plan does not include any on -site surveying or the development of a
geodatabase. However, it does provide a base of information that can be used with existing available City
resources.
SEH will maintain its original two -phase approach to the project. First, SEH will address Planning and
Administration issues involving policy, internal process, and construction. Second, SEH will address
Organization issues focused on collecting and confirming available physical and contractual information
for creation by the City of a centralized filing/database system. SEH will rely on our experience on
similar projects, as well as existing information provided by City staff and resources such as the League
of Minnesota Cities and the American Public Works Association.
Shore Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 V2dnals Cencer Drive, Sc Pnul, MN 5 5 11 0 -51 9 6
SEH Is en eyeal ooporcunlry employer I www.sehinocom 1 651.490.2000 1 °00.325.2055 1 651 490.2150 fax lSW/
Mr. Richard Nagy
January 27, 2009
Page 2
Scope of Work
Planning and Administration
SEH will review existing available information for development of the following:
1. City Telecommunications Ordinance
• Obtain and review applicable City zoning requirements
• Coordinate internal meetings with City staff to define approach related, but not limited to, siting, co-
location, design, appearance, and public safety
• Research and coordinate (with City attorney) the development of a final ordinance document for
City approval
2. Application Process Procedure
• Tenant application form (incl. recommendation for fee structure)
• Internal application process
• Master lease agreement
• Site decommissioning (incorporated into Master Lease)
SEH will gather and evaluate available information from communities on similar size and proximity to
traffic corridors. SEH will review agreement models currently recommended by municipal organizations
such as the National League of Cities, American Planners Association, and State Wireless Association
Program (SWAP).
Organization
SEH will coordinate with City staff, and or through direct field investigation the collection of applicable
tenant data. Both site inventoried and contractual tenant data will be reviewed for verification, and
delivered to the City in either an Excel format and/or by identifying the information on City- provided "as -
built'drawings.
Information to include:
• Antenna (type, azimuth, elevation, lifecycle status, install date, antenna function, tenant contract
information, comments
• Ground equipment (tenant, type, comments)
• Documentation (lease agreements /amendments, terms, tenant contacts for lease/ construction
coordination, antenna record plans)
In addition, SEH will provide a structural review of the existing handrail systems, and provide an opinion
of the systems capacity to support additional tenants or tenant expansion.
Finally, on a project by project basis, SEH can provide engineering services related to individual tenant
installation planning and construction. These services include the following:
• Review site plan, landscaping plan, antenna information, and specifications.
• Review related structural and foundation construction documents.
• Consult with Hutchinson to ensure that the planned installation meets the Citys requirements.
• Review shop drawings based on the final approved construction drawings. (Included in item 1).
(' (C�
Mr. Richard Nagy
January 27, 2009
Page 3
Conduct a preconstruction meeting with the contractor, subcontractors, and the City of Hutchinson
prior to the commencement of construction to ensure that all parties understand the Citys requirements
and coordinate the construction schedule.
Perform site visits to ensure that the installation is in accordance with the City's requirements: (this
includes up to three trips to site or shop, specific to review of painted items.)
- Provide inspection of the applicable coating surface preparation and application to ensure
compliance with the existing system and manufacturer's recommendations
- Provide inspection of installed components in accordance with the approved plans
Conduct a final inspection and prepare a punch -list of work items to be completed by the contractor
- Review record drawings of the installation prepared by the contractor
Plan reviews, calculations reviews, and shop drawing reviews can be completed within seven business
days after receipt. Construction observation of major work items will be performed based on an agreed -
upon schedule (determined at the preconstruction meeting, with the contractor providing 48 hours notice).
These services will be contracted separately and billed on an hourly basis.
Fee
SEH proposes a lump sum, not -to- exceed fee of $23,400 for the above - outlined Telecommunications Site
Management services, including direct expenses. For your convenience, we have provided below a
breakdown of the tasks and costs associated with this project.
PLANNING / ADMINISTRATION
City Telecommunications Ordinance
$3,800
Application Process Procedure
$7,300
ORGANIZATION
Tenant Data Collection
$7,500
Structural Review
$2,000
Project Management
$2,800
Total Project Cost
$23,400
Mr. Richard Nagy
January 27, 2009
Page 4
Schedule
Upon authorization by the City of Hutchinson, SEH will begin this project immediately. This project can
be completed within 90 days. SEH will obtain all required background information from the City
including (but not limited to) lease agreements/addenda, existing contract information, and as -built
drawings.
If you have any questions regarding the specifics of our work scope, please contact me at 651.490.2160.
We look forward to assisting the City of Hutchinson with this important project.
Sincerely,
SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC.
Daniel J. Zienty
Associated Senior Project D gn Leader
Accepted on this /Q {� day of 2009
City of Hutchinson, Minnesota
By:
Title:
hn odeber5PE
Client ervice s ntative
e . 1- 2 (- -1)V
I I 1 Hassan Street Southeast
Hutchinson, MN 55350
(320) 587 - 515176x: (320) 2344240
City of Hutchinson
APPLICATION FOR GAMBLING DEVICES LICENSE
In provisions of the City of Hutchinson Ordinance No. 655 and Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349
All applications must be received at least 30 days before event in order to be considered
Application T
O Short Term Date(s) t:9 -A 7 -L)9 - -
7 Dj Fee: $30.00
Month/D /Year - Month/D /Year
Organization Information -°
. t �z & �
y79 7 S� 1- n 6zs37,�
ex Nat h
yG 161�
Phone Number
Address where regular meeting Pre held
City State Zip
Day and time of meetings? A' �/ /jG�tij��2i�
t� ' 0 -i
Is this organization organized under the laws of e State of Minnesota? yes ❑ no
How long has the organization been in existence? J
How may members in the organization?
What is the purpose of the organization? �C t 14, [sr rJ2/ r�L � �rix� �Gt O
In whose custody will or am ation records be kept?
F73Y' Name
W' �
t✓`l� +L /•��-�
Phone Number
//7,c1 '55385
�YZ =! L `"� 37
Address
—.��
city State Zi
7 W,
13-x AA &i -w riter 9 - IZI-1256'2 1)
Residence Address city,//�� State
Date of Birth: Place of Birth- C�G��LL
Month/day /year city �
Have you ever been convicted of any crime other than a traffic offense? ❑ yes C r'no
If yes, explain:
Number
Zip
1
State
(' (J)
City ofHutcbinson
Application for Bingo Gambling Devices License
Page 2 of 3
J True Name Phone Number
Residence Address City State zip
Date of Birth: CJ5 0& / / gyp PlaceofBirth: �X 1�
Monthlday /year City State
Have you ever been convicted of any crime other than a traffic offense? ❑ yes LHO
If yes, explain:
How long have you been a member of the organization?
Game Information
y Location #I
Z-ej.l LL'z��2 tlLlLz; Ci <J L 7.{'7 —
Name of loceftion where game will be played Phone Number
1 w5y
Address of location here game will be played City State zip
Date(s) and/or day(s) gambling devices will be used: through 7 G "f
Hours of the day gambling devices will be used: From PM To CcVy A
Maximum number of player: � �
Will prizes be paid in money or merchandise? ❑ U money - merchandise
Will refreshments be served during the time the gambling devices will be used? ❑ yes
If yes, will a charge be made for such refreshments? ❑ yes ❑ no
Game Information'
Location #2
No e of location where game will be played Phone Number
Address of location where game will be played City State zip
Date(s) and /or day(s) gambling devices will be used: through
AM AM
Hours of the day gambling devices will be used: From pM To PM
Maximum number of player:
Will prizes be paid in money or merchandise? ❑ money ❑ merchandise
Will refreshments be served during the time the gambling devices will be used? ❑ yes ❑ no
If yes, will a charge be made for such refreshments? ❑ yes ❑ no _
Name Title
Residence Address City State zip
Name Title
Residence Address City State zip
City of Hutchinson,
Application for Bingo Gambling Devices License
Page 3 of3/t /�
Name Title
5, 5 l ht Jam
Officers or Other Persons Paid for Services Information ffnecessqr3,
list additional names on se arate sheet
oil Name —
Residence Address
City
Title
State
Zip
Name
Title
Residence Address
Name
City
-
State
Title
Zip
Residence Address
Ci
State
Zi
Have you (Gambling Manager and Authorized Officer) read, and do you thoroughly understand the provisions of all laws,
ordinances, and regulations governing the operation and use of gambling devices (as outlined in City of Hutchinson
Ordinance 114.20 and Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349)?
Gambling Manager C9,es ❑ no >dA-t- Authorized Officer es ❑ no Z`-t l
Initial Initial
I declare that the information I have provided on this application is truthful, and I authorize the City of Hutchinson to
investigate the information submitted. Also, I have received from the City of Hutchinson a copy of the City Ordinance No.
114.20 relating to gambling and I will familiarize myself with the contents thereof.
Signatut6 of authorized officer of organization- Date
manager of organization Date
City Council U approved O denied Notes:
(�' �d)
ZVZ ,��
OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR
TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON
McLEOD COUNTY, MINNESOTA:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, That the 29th day of April 2009
at 4:30 o'clock P.M., has been fixed as the date for the meeting of the Board
of Appeal in your City for said year. This Meeting should be held in your office as
provided by law.
Pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 274.03, you are required
to give notice of said meeting by publication and posting, no later than ten days
prior to the date of said meeting.
Given under my hand this 30th day of January 2009
Sue Schulz, County Ass or
McLeod County, Minne of
Filed in my office this day of 20
Clerk
c0 (�
R
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Kent Exner, City Engineer
RE: Public Hearing for 2009 Pavement Management Program Phase 1(Letting No. 3/Project
No. 09 -03)
DATE: February 10, 2009
City staff will provide brief overview of the 2009 Pavement Management Program Phase 1 project prior to the scheduled
Public Hearing.
City staff will have administered a Project Open House on Wednesday, February 10 (see attached Neighborhood
Meeting Notice & Informational Sheet), to provide additional information to property owners adjacent to the 2009
Pavement Management Phase 1 project project. At this point, we have received limited feedback or questioning from
impacted property owners regarding this project. However, we will provide a review of the Open House discussions at
the Council meeting.
Following the project overview, neighborhood meeting review and potential public comments, staff will request that the
City move forward with the final preparation of plans /specifications and advertise for bids. The anticipated bid opening
date is Tuesday, March 17` at 10:30 AM. We believe that if the City expedites the receiving of bids for this project, that
economical benefits could result based on the current contractor work climate.
We recommend that the Resolution Ordering Improvement & Preparation of Plans & Specifications and
Resolution Approving Plans & Specifications & Ordering Advertisement for Bids be approved as described
above.
cc: Gary Plotz, City Administrator
1 � 1
RESOLUTION NO. 13530
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT
AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
LETTING NO. 3
PROJECT NO. 09 -03
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 13th day of January 2009, fixed a date for a
Council Hearing on the following improvements:
McLeod Ave NE (TH 15 to Prospect), 6th Ave NE (Prospect to Bluff), sidewalk construction
along TH 15 (5th Ave NE to North High), sidewalk construction Bluff St NE (5th Ave to 6th
Ave) and wetland mitigation area construction by roadway rehabilitation and utility
infrastructure installations by construction of lateral storm sewer, drain tile installations, lateral
watermain, lateral sanitary sewer, surface reclamation, grading, aggregate base, concrete
curb and gutter, bituminous base, bituminous /concrete surfacing, sidewalks /trails,
landscaping, street lighting, restoration and appurtenances, and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the resolution adopted the 13th day of
January 2009.
2. Kent Exner is hereby designated as the Engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and
specifications for the making of such Improvement.
Adopted by the Council this 10th day of February 2009.
Mayor
City Administrator
�-l/a-)
RESOLUTION NO. 13531
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
LETTING NO. 3
PROJECT NO. 09 -03
WHEREAS, the Director of Engineering has prepared plans and specifications for the
following described improvement:
McLeod Ave NE (TH 15 to Prospect), 6th Ave NE (Prospect to Bluff), sidewalk construction
along TH 15 (5th Ave NE to North High), sidewalk construction Bluff St NE (5th Ave to 6th
Ave) and wetland mitigation area construction by roadway rehabilitation and utility
infrastructure installations by construction of lateral storm sewer, drain the installations, lateral
watermain, lateral sanitary sewer, surface reclamation, grading, aggregate base, concrete
curb and gutter, bituminous base, bituminous /concrete surfacing, sidewalks/trails,
landscaping, street lighting, restoration and appurtenances, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA:
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part
hereof, are hereby approved.
2. The Director of Engineering shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official
newspaper, an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvements under such approved
plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for three weeks, shall specify the
work to be done, shall state that bids will be received by the City Administrator until 10:30 am on
Tuesday, March 17th, 2009, at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers of
the Hutchinson City Center by the City Administrator and/or Director of Engineering, will then be
tabulated, and will be considered by the Council at 6:00 pm on Tuesday, March 24th, 2009 in the
Council Chambers of the Hutchinson City Center, Hutchinson, Minnesota. Any bidder whose
responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address
the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with
the Director of Engineering and accompanied by cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified
check payable to the City of Hutchinson for 5 percent of the amount of such bid.
Adopted by the Hutchinson City Council this 10th day of February 2009.
Mayor: Steven W Cook
City Administrator: Gary D Plotz
Project Scope
STREET REHABILITATION — McLeod Ave NE (Main/TH 15 to Prospect), 6" Ave NE (Prospect to Bluff), and
sidewalk extensions (along TH 15 and Bluff) — Pavement reclamation, draintile with sump pump service installations,
grading, subgrade correction, aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter replacements, bituminous surfacing (4" total
thickness), sidewalk installation, landscaping and seeding w /turf establishment blanket.
Estimated Project Costs & Financine
Estimated Construction Cost $ 820,600
Estimated Expenses 196 944
Estimated Total Project Cost $ 1,017,544
City Bonding
$ 680,844
Improvement Assessments
$ 105,400
Wastewater Fund
$ 23,700
Water Fund
$ 107,500
Stormwater Fund
S 100,100
Estimated Financing
$1,017,544
City Pays For
• Street Rehabilitation — about 50% of pavement, curb replacements, draintile, storm sewer and restoration costs
Partial Street Reconstruction — about 50% of pavement, curb replacements, draintile, storm sewer and restoration costs
Full Street Reconstruction — about 50% of pavement, curb replacements, draintile, storm sewer and restoration cost
• Mill & Overlay — about 50% of pavement, curb replacements, structure adjustments and restoration costs
• Alley Reconstruction — about 50% of pavement, grading, drainage improvements and restoration costs
• Sanitary Sewer & Water Main Improvements — 100%
Property Owner Pays For
Residential /Commercial Streets — about 50% of Street Rehab, Partial Street Recon, Full Street Recon, Mill & Overlay and Alley
Recon costs
New water and sanitary sewer services in areas of new main construction - $1,425 /water & $2,135 /sewer
• Total Proposed Assessment Rates
o Street Rehabilitation $45.00/1'rontage Foot
• Partial Street Reconstruction
• Full Street Reconstruction
• Mill & Overlay
• Alley Reconstruction
$60.00 /Frontage Foot
$80.00/Frontage Foot
$20.00 /Frontage Foot
$40.00/Frontage Foot
Estimated Total Assessment for Typical City Lot (66' width)
o Street Rehabilitation $2,970
NOTES: 1. Methods and amounts of estimated assessments are subject to change.
2. Assessments allocated to properties over a 10 year term (interest rate estimated to be 4 to 6 %).
V-7 c9)
February 4, 2009 ♦ 5:30 — 6:30 PM ♦ City Council Chambers
01/21/2009
Neighborhood Meeting Notice
Letting No. 3 /Project No. 09 -03
2009 Pavement Management Program Phase 1
Wednesday, February 4th ♦ 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM (presentation @ 5 :45)
Hutchinson City Center ♦ Council Chambers
PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENTS
The City of Hutchinson is considering pavement rehabilitation measures at several locations (see
attached map) this summer to address deficiencies in existing pavement conditions, sump pump
drainage, failed curb replacements, and some limited utility improvements. These streets have been
identified as needing repair by the City's Pavement Management Program. Per City staff s review,
these roadways are being selected for improvement during the 2009 construction season based on
the current pavement condition and the timing of the most cost - effective improvement method. At
this point, these proposed project areas are only being considered and are subject to not being
addressed depending on City funding limitations.
The existing street surfacing is severely deteriorated and concrete curb movement /failure is evident
along specific areas of the proposed improvements. Some of the pavement /curbing issues are due to
poor drainage both above and below the roadway surface. These segments of roadway have aged to
the point where preventive maintenance measures would not adequately repair the current surface or
be cost - effective.
The proposed improvements are proposed to be a rehabilitation method that may include
reclaiming/removing the existing pavement section, grading, minimal curb replacement or complete
curb replacement, draintile installation (with sump pump service stubs), new pavement surfacing,
and sidewalk/trail construction. The specific pavement rehabilitation method may vary depending
on the existing street conditions. The proposed pavement rehabilitation methods are proven to be
effective, thus resulting in a longer - lasting pavement surface. This rehabilitation approach also has
shown to be relatively cost - effective by extending roadway lifecycles on average 10 to 20 years.
ASSESSMENTS
This proposed rehabilitation work is considered to be a maintenance project, thus a portion of the
total cost of these improvements (typically 50% for street improvements) will be assessed to the
adjacent private properties on a street - frontage basis. Estimated assessment amounts will be
provided at the Neighborhood Meeting.
9 La)
HEARINGS /PROCESS
This Neighborhood Meeting is the first step in the process. This meeting will be an informal
discussion regarding the project with City staff, to get preliminary information regarding what the
project is proposed to include and to receive a very preliminary estimate of what assessments may
be. Due to the project being in a fairly early stage, these estimates may be fairly broad. This
informal discussion will allow individual questions /comments to be heard and for a general review
of the project to occur prior to the first official hearing required by assessment procedures.
The first official hearing, the Public Hearing, is currently scheduled for the City Council meeting
on February 10, 2009, at 6:00 PM. This meeting will be televised and is the formal presentation of
the proposed project to the Council. Public input time is included and welcomed. Approval at this
hearing does NOT mean that the project will be constructed. This will be the point at which a
formal decision will be made by the City Council as to whether or not staff should move on to the
next step of completing the plans and specifications and getting actual bids for completing the work,
hopefully in mid to late March.
The second official hearing, the Assessment Hearing, would be called after receiving the bids.
Staff would prepare actual proposed assessments for each property, and send them out in advance of
the meeting. Property owners will then be given the opportunity to comment on the merits of both
the project and the proposed amount of the assessments. Questions, thoughts and concerns
regarding the project or associated assessments would be heard by the City Council, and official
action on whether or not to award the work for construction would be taken. To formally contest an
assessment, a written/signed objection letter must be provided to the City Administrator prior to or
at the Assessment Hearing. This action then allows you, the property owner, to appeal an
assessment to District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of
the appeal upon the Mayor or City Administrator within 30 days after the adoption of the
assessment (typically the Assessment Hearing date) and filing such notice with the District Court
within ten days after service upon the Mayor or City Administrator.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Please feel free to contact Kent Exner /City Engineer at 234 -4209 or kexner(�),ci.hutchinson.mn.us if
you have any questions or comments you would like addressed. We look forward to discussing the
proposed improvements with you on Wednesday, February 4`
Thank you for your time and consideration?
r) tQ)
low,
L -1
7 ?E -
------ Tj
IMIL P -
NP
-Spkucf
r
S FLT
F-
Ll
AS! IrL r�
S r N -
01/21/2009
Neighborhood Meeting Notice
Letting No_ 3 /Project No. 09 -03
2009 Pavement Management Program Phase 1
Wednesday, February 4th ♦ 7: 00 PM to 8: 00 PM
Hutchinson City Center ♦ Council Chambers
PROPOSED SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
The City of Hutchinson is considering the construction of sidewalk improvements at several locations (see attached
map) this summer in conjunction with the 2009 Pavement Management Program street projects. The proposed
sidewalks will provide access to the recently constructed trail/sidewalk improvements along TH 7 and TH 15. Per City
staff s review, these improvements are being considered for construction during the 2009 construction season based on
the possibility of acquiring beneficial construction bids with additional work within the immediate project areas. At this
point, these proposed project areas are only being considered and are subject to not being addressed depending
on City funding limitations.
ASSESSMENTS
The proposed sidewalk improvements will be 100% City costs. Thus, no assessments will be administered to the
adjacent private properties.
HEARINGS /PROCESS
This Neighborhood Meeting is the first step in the project process. This meeting will be an informal discussion
regarding the project with City staff, to get preliminary information regarding what the project is proposed to include.
This meeting will allow for individual questions /comments to be heard and for a general review of the project to occur
prior to the start of the formal project process.
The first official hearing, the Public Hearing, is currently scheduled for the City Council meeting on February 10,
2009, at 6:00 PM. This meeting will be televised and is the formal presentation of the proposed project to the Council.
During this hearing, public input time is included and welcomed. Approval at this hearing does NOT mean that the
project will be constructed. This will be the point at which a formal decision will be made by the City Council as to
whether or not staff should move on to the next step of completing the plans and specifications and getting actual bids
for completing the work, hopefully in and to late March.
The second official hearing, the Assessment Hearing, would be scheduled after receiving the construction bids. Since
your property will not be assessed for the proposed sidewalk improvements, you will not receive notice of this hearing.
However, you are welcome to request informal notification of this hearing (please inform City stall. The purpose of
this hearing will be giving property owners that are being assessed for the street improvements an opportunity to
comment on the merits of both the project and the proposed amount of their assessments. Questions, thoughts and
concerns regarding the project or associated assessments would be beard by the City Council, and official action on
whether or not to award the work for construction would be taken.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Please feel free to contact Kent Exner /City Engineer at 234 -4209 or kexner@ci hutchinson.mn.us if you have any
questions or comments you would like addressed. We look forward to discussing the proposed improvements with you
on Wednesday, February 4 th .
Thank you for your time and consideration! J -
I
-- City of Hutchinson
z Proposed Sidewalk Improvements
i January, 2009
® ®H ®� ® ® ®HV H■ @BAH ■!® L4�P�H ® ®� ®Wb»�@3 ®1 ■® l ^I1
1
■
a
■
■
`c;__ _
°° +'r n�
_
■
■
-
r
■
a
AVE
K
■
■ i
1:� 1
0
�. ..
�.
r -
® ®
0041 u
A
<
e
® ®H ®� ® ® ®HV H■ @BAH ■!® L4�P�H ® ®� ®Wb»�@3 ®1 ■® l ^I1
1
ORDINANCE NO. 09 -0523
AN ORDINANCE REVISING SECTION 31.20 — ORGANIZATION AND
APPOINTMENT
THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON ORDAINS:
§ 31.20 ORGANIZATION AND APPOINTMENT.
(A) Except as required by state law or the City Charter, all board and commission
appointments atitherized b) eFdinanee of reselu sliallbe nad ythe ^�and each
appointment fifif ,R shalt be approved by the Council. The term of each appointee shall be
established and stated at the time of his or her appointment. No board or commission member
shall be appointed to more than two full consecutive terns or for a period to exceed ten years,
whichever is lesser. New appointees shall assume office on the first day of the first month
following their appointment and qualification, or on the first day of the first month following the
expiration of the prior term and qualification, whichever shall occur last. Provided, however, that
all appointees to boards and commissions shalt hold office until their successor is appointed and
qualified. All vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as for an expired term, but the
appointment shall be only for the unexpired term.
(B) All appointed board and commission members shall serve without remuneration,
but may be reimbursed for out -of- pocket expenses incurred in the performance of their duties
when those expenses have been authorized by the Council before they were incurred.
(C) The chair and the secretary shall be chosen from and by the board or commission
membership annually to serve for one year. Provided, however, that no chair shall be elected
who has not completed at least one year as a member of the board or commission.
(D) Any board or commission member may be removed by a four -fifths majority
vote of the Council for misfeasance, malfeasance or non- feasance in office and his or her position
filled as any other vacancy.
(E) Each board and commission shall hold its regular meeting at a time established
by it.
(F) Except as otherwise provided, this section shall apply to all boards and
commissions.
Adopted by the City Council this 24 ° i day of February, 2009.
ATTEST:
Mayor Steven W. Cook Gary D. Plotz, City Administrator
GH E A TER
ip
C I r VIIE S
February 3, 2009
Dear Hutchinson Council and Mayor,
Dedicated to a Strong Greater Minnesota
On behalf of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities (CGMC), I would like to thank you for
the opportunity to speak at the City Council's February 10 tb meeting. I strongly believe that
Hutchinson's membership in CGMC is vital to the success of our organization, and look forward
to discussing the challenges ahead with you.
Like Hutchinson, cities across Minnesota are facing tough budget decisions, and it may seem
difficult to justify your CGMC dues when other city services are on the chopping block.
However, it is in times like these that your CGMC membership is one of your best investments,
particularly when considering the amount of LGA Hutchinson could lose this session without a
strong, united voice of opposition at the Capitol.
Already, the governor has proposed cutting Hutchinson's 2009-2010 LGA allotment by nearly
$1.3 million, in addition to the $300,000+ the city lost during the December unallotment. These
numbers are likely to become worse once the revised budget deficit is announced in March. With
a strong advocacy program, we believe we can significantly reduce any proposed cuts.
Historically, CG-MC's advocacy prograrn has proved successful at doing this. Since 200' ),
several attempts have been made to cut LGA funding, and CGMC has significantly reduced
these cuts and has even secured additional ftinding. As an example, CGMC prevailed in
obtaining $24.5 million more in LGA in 2003 for our cities than they would have under the
governor's proposed cuts.
These victories would not have been possible without the support of all CGMC members.
CGMC dues fund numerous daily meetings with legislators, research and analysis of legislation,
the creation of lobbying materials, media outreach campaigns, strategy sessions, and membership
meetings, among other activities. If a member of the Coalition decides to discontinue their
membership, the ftequency and effectiveness of these activities suffer.
I have enclosed several documents that demonstrate CGMC's efforts to protect LGA and
communicate important information to our membership. I would greatly appreciate it if you
could review these prior to the February I oth council meeting.
LGA Promotes Fair Property Taxation & Comparison of 2008 City Tax Rates With
and Without LGA. These handouts are examples of the lobbying materials CGMC
prepares and distributes to legislators.
q LO-)
• LGA Formula: City of Hutchinson. This handout shows how Hutchinson's LGA
allotment is calculated by the LGA formula. Over the years, CGMC has successfully
lobbied for formula changes that address the specific needs of greater Minnesota cities.
• Local Government Aid Cuts 2008 -2010 under Governor's Proposed Budget. This run
is an example of the analysis CGMC prepares for our cities, and shows the impact the
governor's proposed LGA cuts will have across the state.
• CGMC in Brief, 1/29109. The CGMC in Brief is an example of how CGMC
communicates updates on legislation and other important information back to our
membership.
• Memo to Mayors and Administrators, 2/2/09. CGMC is largely successful because of
its engaged membership. Cities often receive memos like this one with action items they
can take up on the local level.
In tough economic times like these, cities in greater Minnesota need to protect themselves with
the power in numbers. The cities that make up CGMC greatly value Hutchinson's membership
and support. I welcome the opportunity to directly address any questions or concerns you may
have about CGMC, and hope that you will take this chance to reexamine the benefits of
belonging to CGMC.
Sincerely,
Tim Flaherty
Executive Director of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities
EMI
Comparison of 2008 City Tax Rates With and Without LGA
Assumes complete removal of LGA and total replacement of aid with levy
} �
Curran ax
Ia i"Tax
Albert Lea
43.2%
94.6%
Alexandria
33.7%
44.9%
Austin
32.0%
102.4%
Babbitt
79.3%
126.6%
Bagley
90.6%
169.2%
Bemidji
35.8%
74.5%
Benson
47.5%
102.2%
Brainerd
44.6%
90.9%
Breckenridge
49.9%
147.2%
Cannon Falls
64.5%
83.3%
Cloquet
40.3%
66.9%
Crookston
60.6%
182.6%
Detroit Lakes
30.8%
41.8%
Dilworth
49.4%
79.6%
Dodge Center
71.3%
123.3%
East Grand Forks
53.9%
107.0%
Elbow Lake
153.2%
240.2%
Ely
75.5%
161.8%
Eveleth
86.9%
270.8%
Faribault
33.3%
703%
Fergus Falls
42.9%
873%
Gilbert
116.5%
223.4%
Glencoe
58.0%
94.4%
Glenwood
59.8%
105.3%
Goodview
45.0°
49.7%
Grand Marais
46.6%
58.2%
Grand Rapids
68.7%
85.6%
Granite Falls
72.5%
118.1%
Hawley
40.0%
87.3%
Hibbing
62.8%
170.5%
Hinckley
281%
43.5%
Hoyt Lakes
75.1%
95.5%
Hutchinson
55.2%
76.7%
International Falls
64.9%
171.0%
Janesville
61.5%
127.1%
Kenyon
56.3%
102.7%
La Crescent
53.6%
69.5%
Le Sueur
49.8%
83.3%
Litchfield
58.5%
105.6%
Luverne
44.7%
104.7%
r
Mankato
Curret7Tax
Rene„
36.6%
f- 3
i4
Ito
59.3%
Marshall
51.7%
81.3%
Melrose
62.0%
99.6%
Moorhead
31.5%
71.8%
Morris
50.4%
138.0%
Mountain Iron
55.3%
102.6%
New Ulm
59.2%
114.0%
North Mankato
44.5%
61.4%
Olivia
74.4%
145.5%
Ortonville
67.3%
1610%
Owatonna
44.1%
64.3%
Park Rapids
45.8%
60.1%
Perham
55.0%
84.9%
Plainview
56.5%
88.2%
Princeton
63.5%
86.4%
Red Wing
54.7%
60.9%
Redwood Falls
78.2%
123.4%
Renville
133.6%
220.8%
Rochester
42.2%
50.3%
Roseau
68.9%
113.7%
Rushford
69.2%
135.3%
St. Charles
34.5%
69.0%
St. James
49.5%
135.5%
St. Joseph
47.7%
69.5%
St. Peter
43.7%
95.8%
Sartell
31.5%
31.5%
Springfield
114.5%
257.1%
Staples
57.9%
151.2%
Thief River Falls
48.9%
121.4%
Tracy
137.4%
283.8%
Virginia
73.0%
188.2%
Wadena
37.4%
97.2%
Waite Park
553%
56.6%
Warren
74.9%
202.4%
Warroad
81.0%
156.5%
Waseca
63.6%
112.5%
Willmar
28.1%
64.4%
Windom
75.9%
145.8%
Winona
30.8%
84.0%
Worthington
51.4%
113.1%
Source: MN Department of Revenue.
Calculations prepared by Flaherty Hood, P.A. forthe Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, 1/9/2008.
Other Regional Centers
Duluth 1 23.3% 73.3% ISt. Cloud 40.8% 65.4%
Select Metro Cities
Andover
31.4%
31.4%
Anoka
37.0%
44.5%
Apple Valley
35.5%
35.5%
Blaine
29.1%
29.1%
Bloomington
32.0%
32.0%
Brooklyn Center
43.9%
49.1%
Brooklyn Park
37.7%
37.7%
Burnsville
35.0%
35.0%
Champlin
32.9%
32.9%
Chanhassen
23.7%
23.7%
Chaska
19.2%
19.4%
Columbia Heights
43.1%
52.4%
Coon Rapids
30.8%
31.6%
Cottage Grove
35.1%
35.1%
Crystal
35.4%
45.1%
Eagan
25.9%
25.9%
Eden Prairie
27.0%
27.0%
Edina
21.2%
21.2%
Falcon Heights
18.6%
26.0%
Forest Lake
29.4%
29.4%
Fridley
30.3%
33.1%
Golden Valley
43.0%
43.0%
Ham Lake
23.9%
23.9%
Hamburg
85.7%
102.2%
Hastings
49.5%
50.1%
Hopkins
45.4%
45.7%
Hugo
34.2%
34.2%
Inver Grove Heights
38.0%
38.0%
Lakeland
32.5%
37.3%
Lakeville
34.2%
34.2%
Lilydale
41.2%
41.7%
Lino Lakes
39.0%
39.0%
Little Canada
21.0%
23.3%
Maple Grove
29.3%
29.3%
Maplewood
30.8%
30.8%
Mendota Heights
24.3%
24.3%
Minneapolis
56.3%
79.1%
Minnetonka
27.6%
27.6%
Minnetrista
27.7%
27.7%
Mounds View
35.0%
36.4%
New Brighton
32.8%
32.8%
New Hope
41.9%
44.5%
Newport
47.2%
68.1%
North St. Paul
21.6%
40.8%
Oakdale
30.2%
30.2%
Plymouth
22.9%
22.9%
Prior Lake
28.1%
28.1%
Ramsey
39.5%
39.5%
Richfield
37.9%
45.1%
Robbinsdale
35.1%
45.8%
Rogers
38.7%
38.7%
Rosemount
42.4%
42.4%
Roseville
23.4%
23.4%
St. Anthony
6.4%
23.1%
St. Louis Park
34.8%
34.8%
St. Paul
30.4%
55.1%
St. Paul Park
32.7%
38.9%
Savage
48.4%
48.4%
Shakopee
31.9%
31.9%
Shoreview
23.5%
23.5%
South St. Paul
36.1%
49.3%
Spring Lake Park
47.4%
47.4%
Stillwater
48.1%
50.5%
Vadnais Heights
18.2%
18.2%
West St. Paul
43.7%
51.2%
White Bear Lake
16.5%
21.6%
Woodbury
28.2%
28.2%
Source: MN Department of Revenue.
Calculations prepared by Flaherty Hood, P.A. forth Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, 1/9/2008.
Base
Regional Center Aid
• Cities over 10,000
POP.
• _ (2000 Pop. -
5000) x $60
• Max. of 2,500,000
Individual City Aids
• Temporary aid
increases to an
individual city.
Hutchinson Base:
$484,800
Jobs /Small City
Need
Effort
Jobs base aid
Formula determines need per
Effort is the amount of
• Cities over 5,000
person. For cities over 2,500, the
revenue a city should be
POP.
formula includes these factors:
able to provide. It is
• = Jobs /pop. (2008)
• Pre -1940 housing
calculated by:
x $252 x current
percentage
• Multipling a city's
pop. - 36% of
• Population decline
tax capacity by the
Regional Center
percentage
average tax rate for
Aid
• Household size
Minnesota cities
• Max. of 4,735,000
• Road accidents per capita
Small City Aid
• Metro / non -metro
• Cities under 5,000
indicator
Pop-
The need is then multiplied by the
Effort — $11,800,404 .x
• = pop. x $8.5
city's population
32.24%
Hutchinson
Need = $417.35 x 13,977
Jobs /Small City:
Hutchinson Need:
Hutchinson Effort:
$106,956
$5,833,301
$3,804,828
Maximum LGA
Minimum LGA
Final LGA
_ $4,142,231
_ $2,040,396
_ $2,325,514
Local Government Aid Cuts 2008 - 2010 under Governor's Proposed Budget
City
December
2008: LGA
Cut
Gov's Budget
Est. 2009,
LGA Cut
Gov's
Budget Pct
Reduction
in LGA
-2009
Gov's Budget
Total Est.:
2009 LGA
.
Est Total !
2008 & 2009
LGA Cut
under Gov's
Budget
2008 -2
LGA Cut
as % of
2009 Levy
+ -Aid
under
Gov ,
Budget
Gov's Budget
Est 2610
LGA Cut
:.
from
Certified
2009
Gov's Budget
Total Est
2010 LGA
206'8"- 2009-
LGA Cut &i
WHC as
%of 2009
Levy +Aid
under Giiy's
.;Budget `
Albert Lea
$400,139
$514,518
9%
$4,917,996
$914,657
9.0%
$1,074,404
$4,358,110
9.0 %
Alexandria
$226,358
$315,125
18%
$1,407,377
$541,483
87%
$658,036
$1,064,466
8.7%
Austin
$452,110
$579
7%
$7,186.789
$1,031,484
9.0%
$1,209,834
$6,556,329
9.0
Babbitt
$65,096
$99,470
26%
$288130
$164,566
8.4%
$207.711
$179,889
8.4%
Bagley
$36.676
$47,308
11%
$380,280
583,984
9.0%
$98,787
$328,801
9.0%
Bemidji
$241,303
$320,922
10%
$2,958,700
$562,225
8.8%
$670,141
$2,609,481
8.8%
Benson
$75,232
$96,251
10% 1
$869,489
$171,483
9.0%
$200.989
$764,751
9.0%
Brainerd
$317,224
$413,462
10%
$3,772,772
$730,686
8.9%
$863381
$3,322,853
8.9%
Breckenridge
$77,216
$100,037
8%
$1,187,145
$177,253
8.9%
$208,894
$1,078.288
8.9%
Cannon Falls
$118,666
$173,511
25%
$507,309
$292,177
8.5%
$362,320
$318,500
8.5%
Cloquet
$230,683
$296,775
13%
$2,028,146
$527,458
9,0%
$619,718
$1.705,203
9.0%
Crookston
$192,916
$254,604
7%
$3,217,120
$447,520
8.9%
$53L657
$2,940.067
8.9%
Detroit Lakes
$142.581
$187,493
19%
$820.072
$330,074
8.9%
$391,518
$616,047
8.9°/
Dodge Center
$74.274
$96,327
12%
$695,443
$170,601
8.9
$201,147
$59,623
89%
East Grand Forks
$
$286,301
10%
$2545.668
$506,455
8.9%
$597,847
$1234,122
8.9%
Elbow Lake
$45,447
$57,392
14
$357,769
$102,839
9.1%
$119,845
$295,316
9.1%
Ely
$133,480
$179,356
10%
$1,654,818
$312,836
8.8%
$374,527
$1,459_647
8_8%
Eveleth
$152,206
$202,634
9%
$2,120,649
$354.840
8.8%
$423.135
$1,900,148
8.8%
Faribault
$453,214
$619,085
10%
$5.286.256
$1
8.7%
$1,292,757
$4,612,584
8.7%
Fergus Falls
$320,315
$415,606
10%
$3
$735,921
8.9%
$867.859
$3276,086
8.9%
Gilbert
$67,564
$93,302
12%
$666,820
$160,866
8.7%
$194.831
$565,291
8.7%
Glencoe
$123188
$161,938
13%
$1,113,751
$285,126
89%
$338,154
$937.535
8.9%
Glenwood
$69,599
$89,660
12%
$670,465
$159,259
9.0%
$187,226
$572,899
9.0%
Goodview
$58,028
$76,086
51%
$74,330
$134,114
8.9%
$150.416
$0
8.9%
Grand Marais
$32949
$49,700
27%
$134,509
$87,649
8.9%
$103,783
580,426
8.9%
Grand Rapids
$238.562
$319,215
22%
$1,158,045
$557,777
8.8%
$666,576
$810,684
8.8%
Granite Falls
$79,007
$102.994
14%
$618,543
$182.001
8.9%
$215,069
$506,468
8.9%
Hawley
$33,286
$48,767
9%
$523,777
$82,053
8.5%
$101,833
$470,711
8.5%
Hibbing
5608,760
$809,054
9%
$7,955,660
$1,417,814
8.9%
$1,689,446
$7,075,268
8.9%
Hinckley
$28245
$36,329
15%
$209.190
$64574
9.0%
$75,860
$169.659
9.0%
Hoyt Lakes
$82,927
$114,772
25%
$342,982
$197,699
8.7%
$239,664
$218,090
8.7%
Hutchinson
$317,672
$414,947
18%
$7,909.991
$732,619
8.9%
$866,482
$1,458.456
89%
International Falls
$222,672
$287,992
7%
$3,657.979
$510,664
9.0%
$601377
$3,344,594
9.0%
Janesville
$53.391
$73,774
9%
$732.764
$127,165
8.7%
$154,054
$652,484
8.7%
Kenyon
$47,719
$62,377
11%
$481,504
$110,096
8.9%
$130,255
$413,626
8.9%
La Crescent
$101,050
$127,952
21%
$485,920
$229,002
9.0%
$267,187
$346.685
9.0%
Le Sueur
$102,230
$136,021
14%
$829,508
$238,251
8.8%
$284,036
$681,493
8.8%
Litchfield
$160.266
$204,042
11%
$1,673,070
$364,308
9.0%
$426,075
$1,451,037
9.0%
So the Dept. of Revenue �\
Prepared by Flaherty and Hood, P.A. .A. for for the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, 1/2812008. J\
`
' City
December
2008 LGA.
'CuL
'
Gov's Budget
Est. 2009
LGA, Cut
-.,
GOY`S
Budget Pct
Reduction
in LGA
2009
:_ : `
Gov's Budget
Total Est'
2009LGA
: Est. Tota V,
2008 & 2009
LGA Cut
under Gov's
Budget
2008 -2009
LGA Cut
as % of
2009 Levy
+Aid
under
Gov's
Budget
Gov's Budget
Est 2010'
LGA Cut:
from
Certified'
Gov s Budget
- ''Total Es #.'
2010 LGA i
3008 -2009:
LGA Cut &;
MVHC as
, -
to of 2009
Levy +'„4id
under Gov's
Budget
Laverne
$90247
$117,294
9%
$1.188,885
$207.541
8.9%
$244,931
$1.061,248
8.9%
Mankato
$776.254
$1,023380
13%
$6,599563
$1,799,634
8.9%
$2,136.995
$5,485,948
8.9%
Marshall
$278,136
$392,055
15%
$2,263,339
$670.191
8.6%
$818,679
$1,836.715
8.6%
Melrose
$79,268
$105,738
14%
$652,428
$185,006
8.8%
$220,800
$537366
8.8%
Moorhead
$560,516
$758,761
10%
$7,074,885
$1,319,277
8.8%
$1,584,425
$6.249,221
8.8%
Morris
$127,929
$172,748
7%
$2,149,035
$300,677
8.8%
$360.729
$1,961,054
8.8%
Mountain Iron
$125,835
$172,915
14%
$1,035,209
$298,750
8.7%
$361.076
$847,048
8J%
New Ulm
$383,862
$499,050
11%
$4,159,896
$882,912
8.9%
$1,042,103
$3,616.843
8.9%
North Mankato
$259,110
$338,306
19%
$1,485,809
$597,416
8.9%
$706,441
$1,117,674
8.9%
Olivia
$64,142
$82.775
10%
$709,147
$146,917
9.0%
$172,848
$619.074
9.0%
Ortonville
$52,827
568,373
9 °%
$713,521
$121,200
9.0%
$142,774
$639,120
9.0%
Owatonna
$534,970
$708,835
17%
$3,551,443
$1,243,805
8.9%
$1,480.171
$2,780,107
8.9%
Park Rapids
$86,085
$114,008
22%
$406,368
$200,093
8.9%
$238.068
$282.308
8.9%
Perham
$64,287
$82,036
15%
$470,367
$146,323
9.0%
$171,306
$381.097
9.0%
Plainview
$71137
$93,370
14%
$573,542
$166,507
9.0%
$194,972
$471.940
9.0%
Princeton
$114.052
$146,845
19%
$622,074
$260,897
9.0%
$306,638
$462,281
9.0%
Red Wing
$568.816
$712,414
49%
$732,706
$1,281.230
9.1%
$1,445,120
$0
9.1%
Redwood Falls
$129,343
$169,240
13%
$1,107,398
$298,583
8.9%
$353
$923,235
8.9%
Renville
$46,112
$57,737
13%
$401,403
$103,849
9.1%
$120564
$338,576
9.1%
Rochester
$1.940,961
$2,548,929
28%
$6,430,887
$4,489,890
8.9%
$5,322,607
$3657,209
8.9%
Roseau
$68,268
$87.961
13%
$592,492
$156,229
9.0%
$183,677
$496,776
9.0%
Rushford
$47,909
$64,775
10%
$568,632
$112,684
8.8%
$135,261
$498.146
8.8%
Saint Charles
$60,948
$78,349
9%
$778,274
$139,297
9.0%
$163,606
$693.017
9.0%
Saint James
$89,812
$116,960
8%
51,330,984
$206,772
8.9%
$244,232
$1,203,712
8.9%
Saint Joseph
$103,983
$135,882
16%
$729,872
$239,865
8.9%
$283,745
$582,009
8.9%
Saint Peter
$180.559
$234,549
8%
$2
$415,108
8.9%
$489.780
52,386,229
8.9%
Sartell
$0
$249,401
56%
$193,962
$249,401
5.1%
$443,363
$0
7.0%
Springfield
$68,403
$87,319
9 0 %
$875,855
$155,722
9.0%
$182,337
$780,837
9.0%
Staples
$67,856
$91.238
9%
$964.985
$159.094
8.8%
$190.520
$865,703
8.8%
Thief River Falls
$166,246
$215.532
8%
$2,469,438
$381.778
8.9%
$450,069
$2,234,901
8.9%
Tracy
$72,708
$93,592
10%
$850,834
$166,300
9.0%
$195,437
$748,989
9.0%
Virginia
$339,610
$444.352
10%
$4,035,213
$783,962
8.9%
$927,884
$3,551,681
8.9%
Wadena
$81,239
$104,494
8%
SL222,377
$185,733
9.0%
$218,201
$1,108,670
9.0%
Waite Park
$55,136
$248,678
84%
$47,202
$303,814
6.2%
$295,880
$0
7.8%
Warren
$32,218
$45,798
8%
$553,968
$78,016
8.6%
$95,634
$504,132
8.6%
Warroad
552,790
$76,058
9 0 %
5739,842
$128.848
8.6%
5158.822
$657,078
8.6%
Waseca
$229,693
$311,350
12%
$2,363,145
$541,043
8.8%
$650,154
$2.024.341
8.8%
Willmar 1
$316,537 1
$410,188
9%
$4,185,898 1
$726.725
8.9%
$856,545
$3,739,541
8.9%
Windom 1
$110,120 1
$144,462
11% 1
$1,189,606 1
$254.582 1
8.9 °%
$301,663
$1,032,405
8.9%
Source: MN Dept. of Revenue
Prepared by Flaherty and Hood, P.A. for the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, 1/2812008. q J\
Other Regional Centers
Duluth
$1,736,744
$2,331,821
8%
$28398.622
$4,068,570
2008-2009
$4,869,247
$25,861
8.8%
Saint Cloud j
$1.393317
1 $1,776,055
14%
$10,576,463
$3.169,372
9.0%
$3,708,712
$8.643,806
2008- 2009'
Apple Valley
$0
$0
Gov s_'.
.
Est Total
LGA Cut
Gov'sBudgef
'` ,-
LGA Cut &:
Blaine
December
Guy' s Budget
Budget Pct.
Gods Budget
2008 & 2004
as %> of
Est 2010
Goir's
Budget
MVHC as
Glty
2008 LGA
Est. 2009
Reduction
Total Est
LGA Cut`-
2009 Levy
LGA Cut
-
Total
Est,
a
" of 2049 i
$706,665
Cut
LGA Cut
in LGA
2009 LGA
under Gov's
+Aid -
from
26 L' GA
lcevy +Aid
S484,239
100%
$D
2009
15%
Budget'`:
under'
Certified
Burnsville
unde`rGov's
$0
#DIV/0!
$0
$0
0.0%
$0
Gov's'
- 2009
Champlin
$0
$221,459
100%
$0
$221,459
2.8%
$221,459
$0
7.1%
Chanhassen
':Budget
$0
#DIV /O!
$0
$0
0.0%
$o
Budget
2.3%
Chaska
$25,000
Winona
$639,170
$814,823
8%
$9,345,515
$1,453.993
9.0%
$1,701,492
$8,458,846
9.0%
Worthington
$228,900
$290A0]
9%
$2,855,278
$518,901
9.0%
$605.572
$2.539,707
9.0%
CGMC Total
1 $15.775399
$21,175,044
12%
$150,031,812
$3
$0
$43,865,355
$127
$0
Other Regional Centers
Duluth
$1,736,744
$2,331,821
8%
$28398.622
$4,068,570
8.8%
$4,869,247
$25,861
8.8%
Saint Cloud j
$1.393317
1 $1,776,055
14%
$10,576,463
$3.169,372
9.0%
$3,708,712
$8.643,806
8.8%
Select Metro Cities
Andover
$0
$0
#DIV /0!
$0
$0
0.0%
$o
$0
5.5%
Anoka
$275.589
$368,100
28%
$937,011
$643,689
8.8%
$768,657
$536,454
8.8%
Apple Valley
$0
$0
#DIV /0!'
$0
$0
0.0%
$0
$0
5.9%
Blaine
$0
$0
#DIV /O!
$0
$0
0.0%
$o
$0
6.1%
Bloomington
$o
$0
#DIV /0!
$0
$0
0.0%
$o
$0
4.0%
Brooklyn Center
$540,535
$706,665
48%
$776,827
$1.247,200
8.9%
$1.475,638
$7,854
8.9%
Brooklyn Park
$0
S484,239
100%
$D
$484.239
15%
$484,239
$0
6.7%
Burnsville
$0
$0
#DIV/0!
$0
$0
0.0%
$0
$0
55%
Champlin
$0
$221,459
100%
$0
$221,459
2.8%
$221,459
$0
7.1%
Chanhassen
$0
$0
#DIV /O!
$0
$0
0.0%
$o
$o
2.3%
Chaska
$25,000
$247,113
68%
$116,472
$272
5.6%
$363,585
$0
7.1%
Columbia Heights
$338.868
$461,013
32%
$964,325
$799,881
8.8%
$961675
$462,663
8.8%
Coon Rapids
$225,000
$150,000
100%
$0
$375,000
1.7%
$150,000
$0
8.8%
Cottage Grove
$0
$0
#DIV /O!
$0
$0
0.0%
$0
$0
7.2%
Crystal
$390,266
$508,343
27%
$1,390.609
$898.609
8.9%
$1.061.509
$837,443
8.9%
Eagan
$0
$0
4DIV /0!
$o
$0
0.0%
$0
$0
4.9%
Eden Prairie
$0
SO
#DIV /0!
$0
$0
0.0%
$0
$0
2.0%
Edina
$0
$0
4DIV /0
$0
$0
0.0%
$0
$O
1.4%
Falcon Heights
$51,683
$71,331
16%
$366.733
$123,014
8.7%
$148.951
$289,113
8.7%
Forest Lake
$0
$o
#DIV /0!
$0
$0
0.0%
$0
$0
55%
Fridley
$361,153
$545.761
41%
$787.092
$906,914
84
$1,139.643
$193.210
8.9%
Golden Valley
$0
$0
#DIV /0!
$0
$0
0.0%
$0
$0
3.0%
Ham Lake
$0
$0
#DIV /01
$0
$0
0.0%
SO
$0
4.5%
Hamburg
$0
$21,641
36%
$38,320
$21.641
5.1%
$45,189
$14,772
5.1%
Hastings
S62,852
$361,324
100°,x°
$o
$424,176
3.6%
$361324
$0
7.9%
Hopkins
$25,000
$50.000
100%
$0
$75,000
0.8%
$50,000
$0
4.6%
Hugo
$0
$0
#DIV /D!
$o
$0
0.0%
$0
$0
6.8%
Inver Grove Heigh
$0
$o
#DIV /0
$0
$0
0.0%
$o
SO
5.0%
Lakeland
$40,489
$53,925
45%
$65,426
594.414
8.8%
$112,604
$6,747
8.8%
Lakeville 1
$0
$0
#0IV /01
$0
$0
0.0%
$0
$o
3.8%
Source. Dept. of Revenue
.A )�
Prepared by Flaherty and Hood, P. for the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, 1/28/2008. ( /�.
-
Cr ty
%
- December
2908 LGA
Cut.
Gov's Budget
Est. 2009
11
LGA Cut
GoVs
Budget Pct.
Reduction
in LGA
2009
Gov's Budget
Total EsF '
2009 LGA
..
Est. Total
2008 & 2009'
LGA Cot
tinder Gov's
Budget
2008-200 9
LGACut
"'
2009 Levy
-
+Aid
- .
under
Gov 's:
udget
�Gov'sBudget
Est.
:. `LGA Cut
from
Certified
Certified
2009
GOV'3 Budget
Total Est:
2010 LGA
200$: 2fl09
LGA�Ciit&
1Vi7-I „C as
°
f o, Z -
Levy +Aid
under Gdy "s
Budget -
Lilydale
$0
$4,589
100%
$o
$4,589
0.9%
$4.589
$0
4.1%
Lino Lakes
$0
$0
#DIV /01
$0
$0
0.0%
$0
$o
3.9%
Little Canada
$106,597
$153,264
29%
$374,385
$259,861
8.6%
$320,041
$207,608
8.6%
Maple Grove
$0
$0
#DIV /0!
$0
$0
0.0%
$0
$0
3.9%
Maplewood
$0
$0
#DIV /0!
$0
$o
0.0%
$0
$0
4.4%
Mendota Heights
$0
$0
#DIV /0!
$0
$o
0.0%
$0
$0
2.0%
Minneapolis
$13,173,545
$16,858,718
19%
$71,927,693
$30,032,263
9.0%
$35,203,936
$53,582,475
9.0%
Minnetonka
$0
$0
#DIV /0!
$0
$0
0.0%
$0
$0
2.4%
Minnetrista
$0
$0
4DIV /0!
$0
$0
0.0%
$0
$0
0.9%
Mounds View
$60,686
$224,365
35%
$418,501
$285,051
6.4%
$468514
$174,352
8.4%
New Brighton
$0
$152,339
100%
$0
$152,339
2.0%
$152,339
$0
6.8%
New Hope
$224,789
$486,772
66%
$251,929
$711,561
7.4%
$738,701
$0
8.9%
Newport
$100,247
$129,294
17%
$650,189
$229,541
9.0%
$269.988
$509,495
9.0%
North St. Paul
$192,251
$256,076
12%
$1,836,018
$448,327
8.8%
$534,731
$1,557,363
8.8%
Oakdale
$0
$o
4DIV /0!
$0
$0
0.0%
$0
$0
7.8%
Plymouth
$0
$o
4DFV/0!
$0
$o
0.0%
$0
$0
2.6%
Prior Lake
$0
$o
#DIViO!
$0
$o
0.0%
$0
$0
3.4%
Ramsey
$0
$0
4DIV /01
$0
$0
0.0%
$0
$0
6.4%
Richfield
$619,182
$858,662
33%
$1.782,065
$1,477,844
8.7%
$1,793,037
$847,690
8.7%
Robbinsdale
$252,412
$339,606
24%
$1.102,846
$592,018
8.8%
$709.156
$733,296
8.8%
Rogers
$0
$0
#DIV /0!
$0
$o
0.0%
$0
$0
4.1%
Rosemount
$0
$0
#DIV /01
$0
$o
0.0%
$o
$0
4.5%
Roseville
$0
$0
4DIV /0!
$0
$0
0.0%
$o
$0
4.2%
Saint Anthony
$0
$0
4DIV /01
$0
$0
0.0%
$o
$0
4.5%
Saint Louis Park
$0
$0
#DIV /0!
$0
$o
0.0%
$o
$0
4.3%
Saint Paul
$5.688,653
$7,668708
12%
$54,930,310
$13,358,361
8.9%
$16,015,684
$46,58L334
8.8%
Saint Paul Park
$66,705
$87,791
34%
$173,816
$154,496
8.9%
$183,323
$78,284
8.9%
Savage
$0
$0
#DIV /0!
$0
$o
0.0%
$o
$0
3.9%
Shakopee
$0
$0
9DIV /0!
$0
$o
0.0%
$o
$o
4.8%
Shoreview
$0
$0
#DIV /0!
$0
$0
0.0%
$o
$0
4.7%
South St. Paul
$354,804
$480,638
21%
$1.819,013
$835,442
8.8%
$1,003,655
$1,295,996
8.8%
Spring Lake Park
$0
$90,000
100%
$0
$90,000
2.6%
$90,000
$0
7.2%
Stillwater
$227,971
$547,951
73%
$201,287
$775,922
7.2%
$749,238
$0
8.8%
Vadnais Heights
$0
$0
4DIV /0!
$0
$0
0.0%
$0
$0
6.1%
West St. Paul
$399,811
$528,909
35%
$994,233
$928,720
8.9%
$1,104,454
$418,688
8.9%
White Bear Lake
$255,787
$332,934
16%
$1,702,390
$588,721
8.9%
$695,225
$1,340,099
8.9%
Woodbury
$0
$0
#DIV /01
$0
$0
0.0%
$o
$0
3.8%
State Total $51509,805 1 $77,761,160 1 15% 1 $448,387,327 1 $131.270,965 1 4 1 $368,260,463
Source: MN Dept. of Revenue
Prepared by Flaherty and Hood, P.A. for the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, 1128 12008.
p oxeaTER M Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cries
�C1�.ES ' CGMC in Brief
January 29 , 2009 Contact: Tim Flaherty
651 - 225 -8840
Governor's budget On Tuesday, Governor Pawlenty presented his budget proposal, which aim:
proposal takes 23% to close the state's $4.8 billion budget gap. The governor's plan includes no
swipe at LGA over tax increases, and relies on steep cuts, shifts, and use of one -time funds to
next two years make ends meet.
Among the proposed cuts, LGA would take a 15% hit in 2009 and a 31 %
hit in 2010, or 23% over the next two years. Although LGA makes up only
2.8% of the state's general fund expenditures, the cuts to LGA would
comprise 9.8% of the total cuts proposed by the governor.
Details of the governor's proposed cuts to LGA are provided below:
• 2009 LGA Cut = $77,800,000, or 15% of the program's total funds
for the year
• 2010 LGA Cut = S 168,000,000, or 31 % of the program's total funds
for the year
• Cut in both years is made as a reduction in levy plus aid (5.1 % in
2009 and 10.5% in 2010).
• If a city has an insufficient amount of LGA to make the reduction,
the difference is subtracted from the city's market value credit
payment.
• To determine the loss of LGA to your city, please see the attached
run from the Department of Revenue. This run is also available in
the "News" section of the CGMC website www.greatennncities.ore
• No change in levy limits is proposed, which means in 2010 you can
levy back the amount of aid your city lost in 2008 (from the
unallotment) and the aid lost in 2010, but not the aid lost in 2009.
For many cities, the aftermath of these cuts would be crippling —large
service reductions, cuts to public employees, and potential tax increases in
2010 and beyond. It is more important now than ever that you form a
citizens task force to engage the public in discussing service reductions that
may result from LGA cuts. Gaining the public's support is critical in
demonstrating to your legislators and media that the governor's proposal is
the wrong policy. See the attached document regarding steps to establishing
a citizens task force.
CGMC media Following the governor's budget proposal, CGMC was quick to spread our
campaign hugely message that LGA cuts will devastate the economic health of greater
successful out of the Minnesota. A joint press conference held by CGMC and the City of St. Paul
gates received extremely positive press coverage throughout the state. In fact, our
(Continued on page 2)
The C GMC in Briefo prepared for the 79 member cities of Coalition of Greater Alumesota Cities hi Flaheriv & Hood. P.A.
0
strong response to the governor's budget proposal out - shined coverage of
the legislative leadership's response on several nightly news broadcasts!
Attached is a sampling of the television, print, and online media coverage
our press conference received. The Fox 9 story is a must -see!
The receptiveness to our message is proof that strong opposition to the
governor's proposed LGA cuts is a message the public needs to hear. If
your city has not already contacted local media about the governor's
proposed LGA cuts, be sure to do so as soon as possible.
Next step: Contact In addition to the media, contacting your legislators, the legislative
legislators leadership, and the Senate and House tax chairs is imperative. Contact
information for the leadership and tax chairs is provided below.
The governor's proposal is only the first step in the budgeting process.
Legislators need to hear how cuts in LGA will affect the economic health of
your community
Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller (DFL- Minneapolis)
651.296.7809
sen.larry.poeemiller(ti..senate nut
Senate Minority Leader David Senjem (R- Rochester)
651.2963903
semdavidseniem(a senate.nn
Speaker of the House Margaret Anderson Kelliher (DFL - Minneapolis)
651- 296 -0171
rep .mar <�aretkelliherfli hous
House Minority Leader Marty Seifert (R- Marshall)
651-296-5374
rep.martv.seifert(a house.mn
Senate Tax Committee Chair Tom Bakk (DFL -Cook)
651.296.8881
sen.tor).bakkat senate .rim
House Tax Committee Chair Ann Lenczewski (DFL - Bloomington)
651- 296 -4218
rep.ann.lenczewskii(a housemen
Economic stimulus A component of the governor's 2009 -2010 budget recommendations counts
package: Too soon to on a boost from a federal economic stimulus plan, passed by the U.S. House
tell... on Wednesday. The House economic stimulus bill (HK 1) would provide
approximately $4.5 billion to the state of Minnesota, including $LI billion
in state fiscal- stabilization block grants for education and government
services and $478 million for highway and bridge construction. The
stabilization grants along with Medicaid funding— likely will have the
largest impact to the state's budget, while the vast majority of the stimulus
money is intended to supplement state funding, not supplant it. With the
legislation now on to the Senate, it is still too soon to tell what final impact
this legislation will have on the state's $4.8 billion budget deficit.
The CCMC in Brief is p for the 79 mem ber cities of the Coalition ofGrenler Minnesofn Cities by Flaherty &Hood. P.A.
Establish a Citizens Committee or Task Force to Evaluate Options for Cutting City Budgets
Goals:
• To inform city residents of the potential for loss in services and for property tax increases that
will result from LGA cuts at various levels
• To bring together civic and business leaders and ordinary citizens to evaluate options for cuts so
they can make recommendations to the city council
• To have media coverage so the public understands the importance of state legislative action and
the impact it will have on their services and property taxes
Implementation Steps:
• Announce Committee Formation
• Purpose (advisory committee to recommend budget /service cuts)
• Dates of meetings
First week in February (after governor's budget is released on January 27 "i)
Second week in March (after March revenue forecast)
Mid -April
• Make it clear that no cuts will be made until after legislature decides amount of cuts in
May, and recommendations are advisory
• Invite civic and business leaders and others to participate in committee and appoint a chair
• First Meeting in February: City staff lay out options to reach various cut levels (e.g. 13% cut,
50% cut, 100% cut). They will have to calculate savings from closing the library, reducing police
& fire, etc. and how many employees will have to be laid off
• Second Meeting in mid- March; Committee zeroes in on likely cut scenarios
• Third Meeting in mid - April: Committee makes recommendations
of
Television
Fox 9 News
httl2://www.mvfoxtwincities.com/mvfox/MvFox/pages/sidebar video. isp ?contentld= 8319398 &version =1 &lo
cale =EN -US
Almanac: At the Capitol, TPT
http: / /www.tpt.org /aatc /videos /2009 /01/28 /almanac at the capitol ianuary 28 2009 /pawlentys budget
pr oposal
WCCO TV
http://wceo-com/local/pawlenty.budget.spending.2.918973.html
KARE 11 NEWS
http://www.karell.com/news/news article aspx ?storvid= 537879 &catid =14
Winona (Eau Claire TV)
http:
Print Media
Pioneer Press
• http: / /www.twincities.comlci 11568313? AD ID= Search -www twincities com -www twin cities com
• http: / /www.twincities.com /ci 11568529
Star Tribune
• http: / /www.startribune .com /politics /state/38511679 html ?elr= KArks8c7PaP3E77K 3c D3aDhUec
7PaP3E77K Oc::D3aDhUiD3aPc Yyc :aULPQL7PQLanchO7DIU
• htti): / /www.startribune .com /politics /state/38477754 htmhelr= KArksLckD8EQDUoaEygVP4O DW3
ckUiD3aPc: Yyc:aUUSZ
St. Cloud Times
http://www.sctimes.com/article/20090128/NEVVSOI/101280008
ECM Papers
http: / /hometownsource com /index php ?id= 7802 &task = view &option =com content
Bemidji Pioneer
http: / /www.bemidiipioneer com politics /index cfm ?page= article bureau &id = 49067 &legislative taq =1
Grand Forks Herald
http://www.grandforksherald.com/politics/index.cfm?paqe=article bureau &id = 49067 &legislative taq =1
Winona Daily News
http://wvvw.winonadailynews.com/news/00lead.txt
Worthington Daily Globe
http://www.dqlobe.com/articles/index.cfm?id=l 8550§ion=Opinion
Mitchell Daily Republic
http / /www mitchellrepublic com /ap /index cfm ?page= view &id =D95VOBL80
Minnesota Independent
http: / /minnesotaindependent com /24570 /minnesota - budget -cuts
NJ
Grand Forks Herald
http: / /www.gra ndforkshera Id. co m/a rticles /i ndex.cfm ?id= 103902 §ion =News
Fargo- Moorhead Inforum
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/229275/
Red Wing Republican Eagle
http://www.republican-eagle.com/articles/?id=56278
Duluth News Tribune
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/evenUapArticle/id/D95VP2DO2/
Wadena Pioneer Journal
http: / /www.wadena Pl. com /articles /in dex.cfm?id =12767 §ion =news
Online Media
Minnpost.com
http: / /www.minnpost. com /stories /2009/01/27/6234/pie charts and numbers of minnesota %E2 %80 %99
s proposed budget fix don %E2 %80 %99t tell the whole story
a �_)
pF GREATER
� y 0�9
C iV11ES
Dedicated to a Strong Greater Minnesota
MEMORANDUM
To: CGMC Mayors and Administrators
From: Tim Flaherty
Date: February 2, 2009
Re: How will LGA cuts affect your city? CGMC needs to know.
What's on your city's chopping block?
In preparation for several communications efforts, CGMC will need examples of how cities are
preparing to account for lost LGA funding. This information will be communicated back to
legislators, the media, and the public. If your city is considering service reductions (including
layoffs), short-term borrowing, delaying projects, or any other actions, please contact Erin
Flaherty ( enflahertvLt,,flaherty- hood.com with the details. We are not expecting your city to
make final decisions on these items at the moment; we would just like to know about any options
your city is simply considering.
What is your city doing to engage the public?
If you have not yet set up a citizens task force or public forums to discuss these options, now is
the time to do so. Engaging the public and the media is critical if we plan to successfully protect
LGA. If you have initiated a citizens task force or public forums, please contact Erin Flaherty
( ent lahertv(ciutlaherty- hood_eom so that CGMC can learn about the ideas your community
members propose and deliberate.
Must -see website from Minneapolis
The City of Minneapolis has created an outstanding website where residents can learn about cuts
to LGA and how city services will be affected. You can view the website at:
http: /iwww.ci.In inneapoIis.inn.us /finance /2009budget.asp If your city has the technical
capability to do so, CGMC encourages you to post similar information on your city's website. Be
sure to watch the excellent video message from Mayor Rybak! This message was also
broadcasted on the city's local cable access channel.
(Continued on next page)
� 62,)
Your homework (to be completed as soon as possible):
Prepare a list of equivalent service cuts for your proposed LGA cuts. Use Mayor
Rybak's video as an example. For Minneapolis, cutting $13.1 million is equivalent to
cutting 120 police officers or 150 firefighters. What would your city's equivalent service
cuts be? The purpose of doing this exercise is to simply put concrete examples to the
numbers and show that the governor's proposed cuts are a significant amount.
2. Prepare a list of possible service cuts. These are realistic actions that your city may take
in order to make up for lost LGA funding (nobody expects you to layoff the entire police
department). What combination of service reductions, layoffs, project delays, usage of
reserves, etc. would result from the governor's proposed LGA cuts?
Email Erin Flaherty ( enflaherty((dllaherty-hood.com Give Erin your list of equivalent
service cuts and possible service cuts. Also let Erin know if you have started a citizens
task force or have planned any public forums —keep us up -to -date on the outcome of
these efforts!
q 6�)-
Page I of 1
Steve Cook
From: <byrne007 @umn.edu>
To: "Steve Cook' <scook @hutchtel.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: Coalition Membership
Steve: Hutchinson and Marshall have a number of things in common. We a
similar in size, and provide services for not only our community but for
the region. Our cities are regional centers for employment, health care,
education and commerce. We also share a very large negative impact with the
proposed reduction in Local Government Aid.
We continue to be members of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities
because the Coalition has been the only effective voice in communicating
the purpose of property tax equalization between Minnesota Cities through
the use of Local Government Aid. I am convinced that without the Coalition,
LGA would be gone.
The Coalition has also been helpful to us on Annexation and
Environmental issues. Again, these issues are unique to Greater Minnesota
Cities.
We believe that our investment in the Coalition is important, and we will
continue that investment.
Thank you
Bob Byrnes
On Feb 3 2009, Steve Cook wrote:
>Hi Bob,
• With the tough economic times and impending cuts in LGA, some on our
• council are questioning if we should renew our membership in the
• Coalition of Greater MN Cities. Since your city is facing some of these
• same financial issues, I was wondering if you could briefly share your
• thoughts (and /or those of your council if this has been discussed) on why
• you think remaining a member in the Coalition is important to your city.
>Thanks, Mayor Steve Cook
>City of Hutchinson
>(320) 583 -6282
E
2
1 CSt-�
Page 1 of 1
Steve Cook
•
From:
"DAN INC NESS" <nesshd @wisper- wireless.com>
To:
"Steve Cook' <scook @hutchtel.net>
Cc:
<enflaherty @flaherty- hood.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:15 AM
Subject:
Re: Coalition Membership
Hi Steve,
You are correct, these are tough financial times. Alexandria believes our membership in the CGMC is
more important now than ever before. We need a strong voice in St. Paul and we can't hire a lobbyist for
the cost of our membership. We are two and a half hours away from the Capitol and it is impractical and
impossible for us to do our own lobbying.
Historically, Alexndria was one of the first cities in the CGMC. We had, and still have, annexation
issues and grouping together with other cities was the best way to fight in the legislature. The gains we
have seen in this area have been far more beneficial and economical than what we have paid in dues
over the years. Now LGA issues have overshadowed the other issues, and again, our gains as a CGMC
member have far outweighed the costs of membership. We are anticipating additional benefits from the
Labor Relations Committee. We are in a joint venture for our sanitary sewer and it is a separate entity
from the city. 1 know they too have benefitted greatly from the efforts of the CGMC staff.
Good luck.
Dan
- - - -- Original message---- -
From: "Steve Cook" acook hurciltel Oet
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 06:49 -0600
To to rsh&,�:itiher- .�neless.cou�
Subject: Coalition Membership
• Hi Dan,
• With the tough economic times and impending cuts in LGA, some on our council are questioning if
we should renew our membership in the Coalition of Greater MN Cities. Since your city is facing some
of these same financial issues, I was wondering if you could briefly share your thoughts (and/or those of
your council if this has been discussed) on why you think remaining a member in the Coalition is
important to your city.
> Thanks, Mayor Steve Cook
> City of Hutchinson
> (320) 583 -6282
•
2/6/2009
City of New Ulm
100 North Broadway • P O Box 636
New Ulm, Minnesota 56073 -0636
Telephone: (507) 359 -8251
Office of the Mayor Joel T. Albrecht
February 3, 2009
Mayor Steve Cook
City of Hutchinson
Dear Steve,
The New Ulm City Council has taken the position that this is the most important time to
be a member of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities. The primary focus of the Coalition is
LGA and our relationship with the State, we must be an active player in those debates and
lobbying efforts.
Often we are tempted to make a reduction at what seems to be the easiest area of the
budget. In most cases, that is exactly the wrong place. If we are to lessen the cuts to LGA, it
will come from the efforts of the Coalition. If we will be able to restore those cuts in future
r years, that will come from the efforts of the Coalition also. We know of no other organization
that addresses the needs of cities our size as effectively as the Coalition. LMC tries to represent
us in this area, however, it is quite ineffective as it cannot focus on our particular needs.
Finally, an organization is as strong is its members. You have been a very strong,
thoughtful, vocal and effective leader. When we make the visits to legislators, you are respected
and very articulate. Those are the qualities we must have as we carry the message of our citizens
to the state officials. As individuals, we are nearly helpless. As a group of community leaders
we can bring the facts to the Legislature, be heard and change the course of their actions.
Please let me know if I can be of any additional help.
Sincerely,
Joel
Fax: (507)359 -9752 0Email: joel.albrecht @cl.new- ulm.mn.us •Web Site: www.ci.new- ulm.mn.us
The Republican Eagle
R GA-d IP
Different time, same local aid funds
Don Davis
The Republican Eagle - 0210512009
Page 1 of 1
Appeared in:
• Red Wing Republican -Eagle
• Bemidji Pioneer
• Alexandria Echo Press
• Duluth Tribune
• Fargo - Moorhead Forum
• Grand Forks Herald
ST. PAUL — Bill Clinton was president. Ame Carlson was governor. Gasoline was $1.15 a gallon. Six more years of new
television episodes were in "Friends" future. Google was two people in a garage.
And Minnesota cities received $368 million in local government aid.
Fast forward a dozen years and all that has changed, except LGA could still be at $368 million.
That is how Steve Peterson of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities sees the situation as Gov. Tim Pawlenty proposes to chop
local government aids by 25 percent as part of his budget - balancing plan.
"It is a change in policy and a retreat in policy," Peterson told the House property tax committee Wednesday.
But there is little choice other than to make the cuts, Revenue Commissioner Ward Einess told committee members.
"The governor is very sensitive to local aid reductions," Einess said.
However, Einess asked: "Is it a higher priority than other issues ?"
"In no way," he added, "is it an indictment of the cities."
Rep. Lyle Koenen, DFL -Clam City, opposes the cuts, like other rural lawmakers whose cities' budgets depend on local aid. But he
said that he understands why local aids must be cut — they are the third largest part of the budget, behind education and health
programs.
The state faces a budget deficit of nearly $5 billion, but most policymakers predict that will soar to up to $7 billion when a new
economic report is issued early next month.
Rep. Morrie Lanning, R- Moorhead, said he disagrees with fellow Republican Pawlenty on this issue.
Lanning said state government agencies would take a 5 percent cut in Pawlenty's budget plan, compared to about 25 percent for
local aids.
"I would look more closely at state government," Lanning said, adding that the local cut percentages should be closer to state cuts
Property taxes committee Chairman Paul Marquart, DFL - Dilworth, said local government aid will be a major issue in budget -
balancing talks.
"LGA is the great equalizer," Marquart said of the program's founding purpose — to provide communities with less ability to
raise property taxes enough funds to adequately serve their residents.
"My concern is disparity," he said, when rural cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul take most of the cuts when suburbs are little
affected.
However, many suburbs get little state aid, so there is little to cut, Einess said. "We spend a lot of time looking at the geographic
impact."
. Einess said the Pawlenty administration did all it could "to spread the pain around." However, he added, "there really is no other
alternative."
http: / /www. republican- eagle.comlarticles /includes / printer .cfm ?id = 56559 &freebie check &... 2/9/2009
0
February 10, 2009
City of Hutchinson
Mr. John Olson
Dear John,
Attached please find our revised Bid Proposal for the 2009 City of Hutchinson
Environmental Mosquito Management Program. The program objectives are to
protect the public health of Hutchinson's citizens from both nuisance and
potential disease - carrying mosquito populations. Utilizing an integrated pest
management approach and following Centers for Disease Control guidelines, the
plan stresses the use of surveillance activities and environmentally sensitive
control techniques.
Since 1946, Clarke Mosquito Control has been setting an unparalleled standard of
excellence in the mosquito control industry. We understand that the citizens of
Hutchinson have passed a special levy to continue mosquito control services and
• are aware that they will expect a high level of service. We strongly feel that our
experience in the industry and our relationship with the City will enable us to
exceed their expectations.
Clarke is the largest and most experienced provider of contract mosquito control
services in the United States. We have a fully staffed Regulatory Department and
a complete lab facility staffed with professionals. We also manufacture our own
line of equipment and chemicals that are sold throughout the United States and in
international markets. Our service technicians are registered and all applicators
are licensed by the State of Minnesota and insured with a $25 million Umbrella
liability policy.
We appreciate your consideration and look forward to providing the City of
Hutchinson with an unsurpassed level of quality services for years to come. If
any questions arise, please do not hesitate to call us at 800 - 323 -5727.
Sincerely,
John P. Kreyer
Control Consultant
• Clarke Mosquito Control
9 ('0
0 Clarke - Capabilities and Qualifications:
0
•
• Clarke is the largest and most experienced provider of contract mosquito
control services in the United States.
• CEMM was founded in 1946 and has 62 years of experience in providing
contract mosquito control services to governmental agencies.
• The Clarke staff of over 135 employees includes specialists in entomology,
biology, operations, public relations, aviation, cartography, regulatory affairs and
insecticide formulations.
• Clarke's expertise and procedures allow us to maintain a $25 million Umbrella
liability policy that includes a $15 million pollution policy.
• Clarke has 12 offices in nine states with a local branch in Clearwater, MN —
less than 60 miles from Hutchinson. We currently serve over 200 governmental
customers.
• Clarke has a fleet of over 100 trucks, two helicopters, and a partnership with
Dynamic Aviation for fixed -wing aerial application.
• In addition to services, Clarke formulates and distributes mosquito control
products directly to municipalities, government agencies and other customers
worldwide.
• Clarke is currently licensed in 36 states, including Minnesota, and our full time
regulatory staff ensure that we fully cooperate with all local, state, and federal
regulations.
With 6 international offices serving 43 countries, Clarke has been providing
mosquito control products that primarily focus on dengue and malaria control. In
addition, Clarke is the only U.S. company that manufactures mosquito bed
nets. The DuraNetTM is a long lasting insecticidal net that lasts for more than 5
years and is another vital tool in combating disease.
• References
Clarke Mosquito Control is proud to be the largest provider of contract mosquito control
services in the United States. We currently provide mosquito control services to over
1,400 entities, including municipalities, county governments, mosquito abatement
districts, homeowners associations, private corporations, and private residences.
Our corporate headquarters is located in Roselle, Illinois. Other service offices are
located in Clearwater, MN; Poughkeepsie, NY; Sterling, VA; Norristown,: A; Atlanta,
GA; Palatka, FL, Kissimmee, FL; Sarasota, FL; and Wellington, FL.
The following is a list of customer references served by Clarke Mosgt'P `q The
number of years of continuous service is also listed. Many more addrtrgpal r - rences are
available upon request.
Midwest Area
Bloomingdale Township Years Served - 31
Mr. Ed Lavato, Supervisor 4,11
123 N. Rosedale
Bloomingdale, IL 60108
PH: 630 -529 -7715
Village of Burr Ridge Years Served — 31
Bradley Carr, Operations Supervisor
7660 S. County Line Road
Burr Ridge, IL 60521
PH: 630 - 323 -47A -..
Downers Grove Township Years Served - 31
Mrs. Barbara Wheat, Supervisor
4340,r`Prmce Street
Downers Grove, IL 60515
PH: 6,
City of Elmhurst Years Served — 51
Mr. Mike Hughes, Director of Public Works
209 N. York Road
Elmhurst, IL 60126
PH: 630 -530 -3020
Village of Hinsdale
is George Franco, Director of Public Services
19 E. Chicago Avenue
Hinsdale, IL 60521
PH: 630 - 789 -7030
West Chicago Mosquito Abatement District
Mrs. Dona Smith, President
493 Duane Street
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
PH: 630 - 231 -3591
Village of Westmont
Mr. Ron Searl, Village Manager
31 W. Quincy Street
Westmont, IL 60559
PH: 630 - 068 -0560
n
LJ
Celebration Community Development District
(Disney Corporation)
Mr. Brian Smith
610 Sycamore Street, Suite 140
Celebration, FL 34747
PH: 407 -566 -4099
Years Served - 26
Years Served - 21
Years Served - 11
•
0
Fairfax County Health Department Years Served - 6
• Dr. Jorge Arias
10777 Main Street, Suite 203
Fairfax, VA 22030
PH: 703 - 246 -2962
Sarasota County Mosquito Control Years Served — 8
Dr. Lyman Roberts, Entomologist & Manager
5531 Pinkney Avenue
Sarasota, FL 34233
PH: 841- 316 -1247
,
•
2009 City of Hutchinson Bid Agreement
Clarke Environmental Mosquito Management Inc.
Professional Services Outline
• For the City of Hutchinson
Environmental Mosquito Management Program
Part I. General Service
A. Public Relations and Educational Brochures
B. Comprehensive Insurance Coverage of 25 Million
C. Program Consulting and Quality Control Staff
D. Periodic Advisories, and Annual Report
E. Regulatory compliance on local, state, and federal levels
Part II. Larval Control
A. Larval Site Monitoring and Inspections.
1. Complete inspections of retention ponds as outlined from the 2008 Aerial and Ground
Survey, including a 2009 update. Ponds will be treated as required following the
inspections.
• One (1) inspection & treatment at the beginning of the season @ $25.00
per site (based on 50 sites). Treatment using Altosid 150 Day Briquettes.
Part III. Surveillance and Monitoring
A. Light Traps to monitor and evaluate adult mosquito activity.
. B. Two (2) Light Traps with weekly monitoring at $275.00 per month for June, July, and
August. City of Hutchinson will supply power to the locations of the Light Traps. The City of
Hutchinson will be responsible for damage or loss of Light Traps placed in public areas.
Part IV. Adult Control
A. Adulticiding in Residential Areas:
1. Six (6) weekly scheduled community -wide truck ULV treatments of up to 100 miles
with a synthetic pyrethroid based insecticide at $2,600.00 per treatment.
2. Optional: additional community -wide truck ULV treatments of up to 100 miles with a
synthetic pyrethroid based insecticide at $2,600.00 per treatment at the City's request
and based on surveillance.
3. One (1) barrier control application for special event at $450.00 per application.
B. Adulticiding Operational Procedures
1. Notification of community contact.
2. Weather limit monitoring and compliance.
3. Notification of residents would be handled by the City of Hutchinson.
4. ULV particle size evaluation.
5. Insecticide dosage and quality control analysis.
• Page 1 of 3
2009 City of Hutchinson Bid Agreement
Clarke Environmental Mosquito Management, Inc.
• Client Agreement and Authorization
The City of Hutchinson
Environmental Mosquito Management Program
Program Payment Plan: For Parts I, II, III, IV as specified in the 2009 contract:
Inspection & Larval Control $ 1,250.00
Light Trap Monitoring (2 Traps) $ 1,650.00
Six scheduled Adult Control Treatments $15,600.00
One Barrier Treatment $ 450.00
Core Total: $18,950.00
Should the City desire additional adult control treatments based on the surveillance
program, additional treatments are available at $2,600.00 per treatment.
Example A:
• Core Program Cost
$18,950.00
• Four (4) additional adult control
$10,400.00
treatments (for a total of 10)
Overall Total with additional treatments:
$29,350.00
Example B:
• Core Program Cost
$18,950.00
• Six (6) additional adult control
$15,600.00
treatments (for a total of 12)
• Overall Total with additional treatments:
$34,550.00
Billing Options:
• Invoice after each application
• Monthly invoicing based on services performed
II. Approved Contract Period and Agreement:
Please check one of the following contract periods:
❑ 2009 Season ❑ 2009thru 2011 Seasons*
*New areas to be covered in 2010 and 2011 will be pro -rated to the program cost at the rates
in effect at the time.
For City of Hutchinson:
Sign Name:
Title:
Date:
For Clarke Environmental Mosquito Management, Inc.:
Name: John P. Kreyer Sr. Title: Control Consultant Date:
• Page 2 of 3
2009 City of Hutchinson Bid Agreement
Clarke Environmental Mosquito Management, Inc.
• Client Authorization
The City of Hutchinson
Environmental Mosquito Management Program
Administrative Information:
Invoices should be sent to:
Name:
Address:
City:
Office Phone:
Purchase Order Number:
State:
Zip
Treatment Address (if different from above):
Address:
City:
State:
•
Contact Person for City of Hutchinson:
Name: Title:
Office Phone: Fax:
Home Phone: Cell:
Zip
E -Mail:
Pager:
Alternate Contact Person for City of Hutchinson:
Name:
Office Phone:
Home Phone:
Fax:
Fax:
Cell:
Title:
E -Mail
E -Mail:
Pager:
Please sign and return a copy of the complete contract for our files to:
Clarke Environmental Mosquito Management, Inc., Attn: John P Kreyer Sr.
20061 Edison Cr E, Clearwater, MN. 55320 or Fax at (320) 558 2223
• Page 3 of 3
�4
City of Hutchinson
Public Works Department
Operations & Maintenance
1400 Adams St SE
Hutchinson, MN 55350
Phone (320) 234 -4219 Fax(320)234-6971
February 10, 2009
To: Honorable Mayor & City Councilmembers
From: John Olson, Public Works Manager
Subject: Mosquito Control Contract
Past mosquito control services appear to have been effective. The vote for a special levy of $35,000 per
year for 3 years for mosquito control passed 60.3% to 39.7 %. Funding from the referendum represents a
significant (20 %) decrease in funding for this service, so some changes to the program were included in the
initial proposal. The initial proposal was structured with fewer scheduled adulticide treatments, while
retaining the option for adulticide treatments, to be applied as needed. Larvacide treatments done in
detention ponds and wetlands accessible to the City were to be paid for out of the City's Storm Water
Utility.
Citizens are now paying a special levy for this service, and they will expect good service. A `hybrid' of
covering the key weeks with scheduled service and allowing for several optional applications or another
option for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) has the potential to meet both expectations and budget
(which is limited to 3 -year costs at no more than $35,000 per year for adulticides).
There were two quotes received, one from Clarke Environmental Mosquito Control and another from
Mosquito Control of Iowa. Another option, outlined on the following page, is offered by Mosquito Control
of Iowa. This option has the potential for up to two more treatments than the initial proposal, based on
their Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program.
Clarke * Iowa **
Larval control: Storm Water Utility funds $ 1,750 $ 1,500
Scheduled adulticide:
per treatment (6 ea.)
$19,110
$17,700
Additional unscheduled adulticide:
per treatment (4 ea.)
$12,740
$11,800
Light trap monitoring (2 traps):
per trap (2 ea.)
$ 2,640
$ 1,750
Additional barrier control application:
per special event (1 ea_)
$ 510
$ 450
Total adulticide $35,000 $31,700
Total $36,750 $33,200
*Clarke proposal assumes payment prior to April 1, less unused services from previous year.
* * Iowa bills for services performed at the end of the season.
City staff will provide additional input at the City Council meeting and seek feedback prior to making a
recommendation for approval,
9("6)
The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) option, offered by Mosquito Control of Iowa, includes
the potential for two more treatments, which would allow the 2009 program to be close to the
2008 program with less cost. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) includes:
Survey —
Evaluate potential mosquito breeding areas using ground and aerial
mapping.
Monitoring —
Dipping for larvae, bite counts and light traps, weather conditions.
Larvaciding —
Applying larvacides to areas control mosquito population in the larvae
stage.
Adulticiding —
Contact spraying: typically done during evening hours when mosquitoes
are most active. Equipment available: Piper airplane Aerial Ultra Low
Volume sprayer; Ultra Low Volume truck mounted sprayers; Thermal
ULV Generator truck mounted sprayers;
Operations —
Contract price =
Residual spraying: typically done to create a barrier that lasts 7 -10 days
that will control mosquitoes. Equipment available: City-wide residual
spraying equipment for deep penetration into foliage. Residual Alley
Sprayer for habitat common to alleys (shrubs, hedges, brush, etc.).
Off -road Large Area Sprayer for large open areas, such as ball parks and
locations of community events.
The City would receive between 10 and 12 IPM treatments, based on
observations, weather, light trap species counts.
$36,750 ($34,750 = General Fund; $2,000 = Storm Water Utility)
(� Lb)
MOSQUITO CONTROL HISTORY
Since 2005 we have contracted with Clarke Environmental Mosquito Management, Inc. (formerly
Professional Mosquito Control, Inc.) to provide these services. History of the City of
Hutchinson's mosquito control budgets follows:
2005 $19,259.46 for larvacide treatment only (150 -day briquettes) for all detention ponds and
wetlands accessible by the City. Applied by City staff.
2006 $32,470.00 for adulticide treatment ($30,470); Larvacide mosquito breeding site
study ($2,000)
2007 $36,709.68 for adulticide treatment & larvacide treatment based upon inspection
2008 $45,819.45 for adulticide treatment ($32,154.65), Larvacide treatment based upon
Inspection ($12,410.80) and light trap monitoring ($1,254.00)
In 2008, charges were based on 100 centerline miles of street treated with adulticide on a
weekly basis for I1 weeks (2008 = 6/2, 6/9, 6/16, 6123, 6/30, 7/7, 7114, 7/28, 8/11, 8125).
Larvacide was based on two monthly inspections, with treatments applied based on
inspection findings. Light traps were placed in strategic locations and were monitored
weekly.
November election included passage of a special levy for mosquito control for up to
$35,000 per year for three years (2009- 2011). 60.3% Aye; 30.7% Nay.
2009 Proposed — 6 scheduled adulticide treatments, 4 adulticide treatments upon request,
monitoring of two light traps and barrier control for up to one special event. Larva
control to be paid for out of Storm Water Utility funds.
Received two quotes, one from Clarke Environmental Mosquito Management, Inc. and
one from Mosquito Control of Iowa, which included an option for Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) services.
Feb 10. City Council meeting.
Clarke Environmental Mosquito Management Inc.
Professional Services Outline
For the City of Hutchinson
Environmental Mosquito Management Program
Part I. General Service
A. Public Relations and Educational Brochures
B. Comprehensive Insurance Coverage
C. Program Consulting and Quality Control Staff
D. Periodic Advisories, and Annual Report
E. Regulatory compliance on local, state, and federal levels
Part ll. Larval Control
A. Larval Site Monitoring and Inspections
1. Treatment of retention ponds as outlined for the spring of each year with 150 Day
briquettes. 1 Treatment on or around June 1 st @ $ 1750.00
Part III. Adult Control
A. Adulticiding in Residential Areas:
1. 6 Scheduled weekly Community -wide truck ULV treatments of up to 100 miles
with a synthetic pyrethroid base insecticide at $3185.00 per treatment.
2. 4 Additional open schedule of Community -wide truck ULV treatments for up to
100 miles with a synthetic pyrethroid base insecticide at $3185.00 per
treatment. These additional treatments will be approved by the City of
Hutchinson 5 days prior to the due date for scheduling
3. 1 Barrier Application at selected park to coincide with activities @ $510.00 per.
4. 2 Light Traps with weekly monitoring at $440.00 per month for (June, July, &
Aug.) City of Hutchinson will supply power to the locations of the Light Traps.
The City of Hutchinson will be responsible for damage, or loss of Light Traps
placed in public areas.
B. Adulticiding Operational Procedures
1. Notification of community contact.
2. Weather limit monitoring and compliance.
3. Notification of residents would be handled by the City of Hutchinson.
4. ULV particle size evaluation.
5. Insecticide dosage and quality control analysis.
acs)
Clarke Environmental Mosquito Management, Inc.
Client Agreement and Authorization
The City of Hutchinson
Environmental Mosquito Management Program
1. Program Payment Plan: For Parts 1, II, III, as specified in the 2009 — 2011 contract.
Payment due prior to April 1 of each year 2009 — 2011.
Larval Control $ 1,750.00
6 weekly scheduled Adult Control $19,110.00
4 Additional unscheduled Adult Control $12,740.00
2 Light Trap Monitoring $ 2,640.00
1 Barrier Control Application $ 510.00
Total $36,750.00
Payments in 2010 and 2011 will be adjusted for unused services in prior years.
For City of Hutchinson:
Sign Name:
Title:
Date:
For Clarke Environmental Mosquito Management, Inc.:
Name: John P Kreyer Sr. Title: Control Consultant Date:
9 t`)
Clarke Environmental Mosquito Management, Inc.
Client Authorization
The City of Hutchinson
Environmental Mosquito Management Program
Administrative Information:
Invoices should be sent to:
Name:
Address.
City: State:
Office Phone: Fax:
Purchase Order Number:
Treatment Address (if different from above►:
Address:
City:
_Contact Person for City of Hutchinson:
Name: Title:
Office Phone: Fax:
Home Phone: Cell:
E -Mail
Zip
E -Mail:
Pager:
Alternate Contact Person for City of Hutchinson:
Name: Title:
Office Phone: Fax: E -Mail:
Home Phone: Cell: Pager:
Please sign and return a copy of the complete contract for our files to:
Clarke Environmental Mosquito Management, Inc., Attn: John P Kreyer Sr.
20061 Edison Cr E, Clearwater, MN. 55320 or Fax at (320) 658 2223
9 00)
We at Mosquito Control of Iowa have been spraying mosqui-
toes for over 30 years with over 98% renewal of contracts.
We originated and continue to improve the " ENHANCED
FULL PROGRAM" which uses the IPM (Integrated Pest
Management) concept of surveying, monitoring, identifica-
tion, larvaciding, adulticiding, and barrier.
We have the most comprehensive line of equipment including
several ULVs and TUG units that allows us to spray cities in
less time while weather conditions are optimum.
We have ATVs and backpacks that can be used for larvaciding
and adulticiding in off road areas.
For barrier control we have LPG (Liquid Power Gun), air
blast sprayers mounted on trucks and four wheelers. We have
designed and built the ORLAS (Off Road Large Area
Sprayer), RAS (Residual Alley Sprayer), and P26 (City Wide
Residual).
We are licensed and certified by the state of Iowa and Minne-
sota. We are also certified by the state of Florida in droplet
analysis and sprayer calibration.
ACID)
Notification - - -- will be done prior to each spraying
ULU evaluation - - -- droplet calibration and flow rate calibration is done
by MRCA (Mosquito Control Research Association) [independent com-
pany]
Insecticide and quality - -- is done by MRCA (Mosquito Control Research
Association) [independent company]
Public relations and public education will be done out of Howard Lake
MN. brunch office.
• Light trap will be monitored by the branch office in Howard Lake MN.
and reports will be giving to the city of trapping activity.
• Two million liability insurance
• Program consulting and quality control will be done by MCRA (Mosquito
Control Research Association) [a independent company]
No spray list provided for the residents to fill out all locations are marked
on GPS mapping and pictures taken of each house so can be more easy
identified by the applicator at night.
Spray logs will be emailed to the city after each application is completed
and can also be provided at end of year
Regulatory compliance - -- is a must required by state laws
Aerial applications can be utilized anytime during the program season at
city's request with no additional cost to the city.
�N)
$1,500 larva control with 150 day treatment in retention ponds [about
50 locations]
$17,700 6 weekly adulticide applications ground/air
$11,800 4 extra adulticide applications ground /air
$450 Each barrier treatment at selected park
$1,750 2 lights traps with weekly and some before and after treatments
$33,200 Total cost per year for 2009, 2010, 2011
Payment is due will billed at the end of the program season.
Mosquito Control Of Iowa
Rich Welter
C410)
Enhanced Ground and Aerial
Mosquito Control Bid 2009
I _ .. .grated Pest Nlanaeemeni
We utilize the IPM Program which combines all methods of mosquito warfare for the best
possible control.
Survey
lb evaluate potential mosquito breeding areas lie, areas where water will stand for over 5
days) using , round and aerial mapping.
Moni_lerinp
tipping: To know % %here the mosquito larva are hatching and to see population and the stage
of the larva.
Bite counts and Light Traps: to see amount and species of adults and effects of spraying.
Weather Conditions: Bain and temperature to anticipate hatch and correlate sprayings to
optimize the control.
Larvacidine - Z
I arvacidina in s[a4ramu water areas to control die mosquito in the larva stage wilt he performed
during the prosam. In addition, trucks are equipped to larvacide while adulticiding.
Adulticidine
Contact Spraying. nt control the adult mosquitoes when they ore active usually done at night.
Residual Spraying: is used to lay down a barrier that wili kill adult mosquitoes that conic into
contact with it fhis harrier is effective for seven to ten days.
Contact Spraving Equipment
Aerial Application ULV Sprayer. Piper Aztec twin engine aircrarr with state orthz an
application equipment designed fur mosquito control.
Multiple trucks : 'rLC: and U LV sprayers
TUC: (Thermal ULV Generator): I - 1.5 micron droplet size liar better penetration into larger
Mucks and dense foliage areas. Smaller droplet size means greater quantity or droplets pro-
duced. creating a nreater chance of mosquito contact.
ULV iUlga Low Volume) Sprayer: I5 -I8 micron druplet used when weather cundilions are
nod favorable for the - RIG units.
6 Wheeler 6 -wheel drive (Polaris) (fur use in remote areas R R. packs, low areas, wooded
areal, etc, )
Residuals ravin E ui amen[:
P26CW R (City -Wide Residual spraying system)
Ouk)p penetration into lbliu,e where mosquitoes will rest
ILamutc area cuvcraee
Variable spra}' tips }ur a wide vuriety urspray coverage
RAS {Residual Allcy Sprayer)
I',cd lo spray habiw[ W - Cal in alleys (shrubs. hedges, brash piles. etc)
klatmtttl un all I IN equipped trucks
f 3RLAS tuff Road. Lxgc Area Spra%erl
Uscd liar ttrge areas (pork.. hall fields, etc}
Used prior to community events (holiday eelebrarions, appreciation days, camivats, etc)
Proertm Description
i he city will receite a combination of 10 to I I bttegrared Pest Vlanu,entent treatments through out the program
%Oc [sop. Depending the ttomher and species ormosquiroes that vie are encountering the treatments will he selected
from Itae control methods (o provide the city with the best results available. We will also maintain two light traps in
the city to inonaor mosquito populations over seen by the branch office in Howard Lake ION All program will he
app Ita vetI b} the Nh.RA I\iusqui I control Research Association).
( IIY II1'. I ltrg.tL IIirr( n
Date. 0 1120)'1)09
a C-
Prier $o si,oed:
W MUNITY DEVQLOPMENT C014MOSSION
Date: January 26, 2009
An Economic Development Authority
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Miles R. Seppelt
EDA Director
RE: Clarification on EDA Board recommendation
The EDA Board of Directors asked that I forward a note to the City Council clarifying their
position regarding the January 7, 2009 EDA resolution that recommended Councilmember
Chad Czmowski for appointment to the EDA Board.
As you recall, the EDA voted unanimously recommending Chad Czmowski. At the time of the
January 7`" vote, however, only four members of the Board were present and a question has
been raised as to how the other two board members would have voted had they been in
attendance.
After visiting individually with each member, as directed by the Board, I am reporting that they
wanted to emphasize it was their unanimous decision that Mr. Czmowski was the most qualified
candidate — and they are recommending that he be appointed to fill the vacant seat. The EDA
board members felt that he was the most qualified for a number of reasons:
• Councilmember Czmowski is the owner of a downtown business and a member of the
Hutchinson Downtown Association, thus he has a "vested interest" in the downtown.
He is an experienced business person and entrepreneur and would bring those
perspectives to the EDA. His business acumen will be an asset to the board.
Because of his 4 -year term of office, Councilmember Czmowski is guaranteed to bring
some longevity and continuity to the EDA Board. These factors are important because
the EDA frequently works on projects in which the history of the business and / or site is
an important consideration.
The board members also noted that over the years the City Council has traditionally supported
the recommendations of the EDA. The EDA Board has always been very appreciative of this
and it is their hope that this tradition of support will continue in the future.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please give me a call at 234 -4223.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
I (C)l
C
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Kent Exner, City Engineer
Randy DeVries, Water /Wastewater Manager
John Paulson, Environmental Specialist
RE: Consideration of Using Wastewater for Microalgae Mass Production System Grant
Application
DATE: February 10, 2009
City staff submitted a Preliminary Application within the Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09) Environmental Assistance (EA) Grant
Program being administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for the studying of using wastewater
for microalgae mass production system development. A couple of weeks ago, notification was received from the MPCA
that we're invited to submit a Final Application (see attached draft copy). The amount of the grant will be $40,000 which
requires a monetary match of $35,000. The total funding amount of $75,000 will then be conveyed to the University of
Minnesota as a donation for administering this six -month long study. Ultimately, the City will gain knowledge of
whether mass production of specific types of algae is possible using differing mixtures of our wastewater and other media
sources. This potential algae production may also result in another phosphorus treatment application.
At the City Council meeting, City staff will provide additional information regarding the proposed study and the
upcoming grant process. To meet the MPCA's established timeframes, we must submit a Resolution stating the City's
support and secured matching funding source prior to February 23, 2009.
We recommend that the attached Resolution be approved as described above.
cc: Gary Plotz, City Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. 13532
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
FY 2009 GRANT ROUND
Authorization Resolution
WHEREAS, the City of Hutchinson, has applied for a grant from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), under its FY09 Environmental Assistance Grant
Program; and
WHEREAS, if MPCA funding is received, the City of Hutchinson is committed
to implementing the proposed project as described in the final grant application; and
WHEREAS, MPCA requires that the City of Hutchinson enter into a grant
agreement with MPCA that identifies the terms and conditions of the funding award;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA
Hereby agrees to enter into and sign a grant agreement with the MPCA to carry
out the project specified therein and to comply with all of the terms, conditions, and
matching provisions of the grant agreement and authorizes and directs the City
Administrator to sign the grant agreement on its behalf.
Adopted by the City Council this I O day of February, 2009
Steven W. Cook, Mayor
ATTEST:
Gary D. Plotz, City Administrator
o CA�
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency - FINAL APPLICATION - FY09'Gr6nt Round
Part 1: Final Avi ication Pane
Applicant: City of Hutchinson
Mailing address: 111 Hassan Street SE
City: Hutchinson State: MN Zip code: 55350
Contact name: John Paulson Title: Environmental Specialist
E -mail: jpaulson @ci.hutchinson.mn.us Applicant's Web Site: http: / /www.ci.hutchinson.nm.us
Telephone: (320)234 -5682 Fax: (3 20)2344240 Legislative House District: 18A
ID# /Project Title: Using Wastewater for Microalgae Mass Production System
Project Summary ( 250 words or less l : Wastewater treatment and the development of renewable fuels are faced with
many difficult challenges. Our strategy to address these challenges is to develop an innovative process that can be
installed not just here but anywhere wastewater is generated. With the increasing wastewater treatment costs,
reductions in discharge limits, and growing demand for renewable energy we started looking for different solutions.
We will be utilizing technology in the development of growing microalgae with wastewater as a medium and source of
nutrients. Some varieties of algae can contain up to 50% oil that can be extracted and converted into Bio- diesel. The
algae would consume nutrients from the wastewater feed stock which would reduce the cost for the treatment of the
water. By introducing different varieties of algae to our different wastewater streams we will determine the most
economical and viable algae to produce fuel. The algae growth rates and their oil contents will be evaluated to
establish the most economical combination. There is potentially a global impact this program could have on the
production of an easily renewable fuel source that does not displace agricultural land. Once fully developed the
process could potentially be retrofitted to almost any wastewater stream to produce algae that could then be converted
to Bio - diesel. The proposed project is highly relevant to multiple objectives of your focus areas for 2009.
Grant reque $ 40,000 : M a tc hing funds/valu of In -Kind: $ 35, 000 f To Project Co $ 75,000
1. Applicant submitted necessary State/Federal tax identification information? (x)Yes O No
2. Applicant is the sole source of Matching Funds for the proposed project? (x) Yes () No
If no, does this submittal include proof of secured matching funds? ( ) Yes O No
3. Applicant is governed by a Board? (x) Yes O No
If yes, does this submittal include necessary board resolution(s)? (x) Yes O No
4. Applicant is able to complete the final application process & execute grant agreement by 4/28/09? (x) Yes () No
5. Applicant is able to complete the proposed project by June 30 2011? (x) Yes O No
6. Applicant (and/or significant participants) is currently experiencing compliance issues with ( ) Yes (x) No
Minnesota's tax and/or environmental regulatory requirements? If yes provide details under Part 3.
To complete this section, refer to your Preliminaty .4pplication and /or Invite Letter
The proposed project is most representative of the following FY09 Focus Area (select one):
( ) A. Climate Change ( x ) B. Emerging Issues ( ) C. Behavioral Change
io(g)
The proposed project is reflective of the following FY 2009 preferred project proposal identified in the RFP:
( ) A.1 O A.Other ( x ) B.1 ( ) B.3 ( ) C.1 O C.3 O C.Other
( ) A.2 ( ) B.2 O B.Other (
Part 2: Clarity and Completeness of Application and Project Description
(eligibility and completeness ofproposed project)
2a) Clearly state the purpose of/environmental need for this project.
Wastewater contains large amount of nitrogen, phosphorus and other nutrients that can be used by
microalgae. The benefits of coupling an algae biomass production system with wastewater treatment
are tremendous. Management of wastewater and associated gaseous emission is very costly and
technically challenging. With increasingly stringent regulations and limits on wastewater discharge
and gaseous emission, modification of current conventional processes must be made to meet these
new limits. These process modifications will require substantial capital investment and would also
likely substantially increase operating costs.
Reducing nutrient concentrations and producing a renewable biofuel have both environmental and
economic benefits. Coupled together they can; reduce loading to public waters, reduce chemical
usage in treatment operations, increase a treatment plants longevity by increasing its flow capacity,
generate a clean renewable fuel source, reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and potentially aid in
removing excess nutrients from impaired water bodies.
2b) Will this project result in the transference of waste/toxics from one medium to another or result in
the generation of new waste stream(s)?
No. All materials that are generated would be used. Algae that is produced would have multiple uses
including but not limited to: fertilizer, energy source as biomass and biofuel, and a feed stock.
2c) What innovative technologies and/or methods will be utilized in this project?
Wastewater can be used as a medium and source of nutrients for algae production. Experimental
results indicate that effluent water quality decreases with increasing nutrient concentrations and algae
cultures can remove excess nitrogen and phosphorus. The present proposed project takes a creative
approach in which microalgae are grown on nutrients supplied from wastewater and gaseous emission
from wastewater treatment plants, harvested and extracted for oil that is converted to biodiesel fuel.
The 40 -60% residue after oil extraction can be further converted to bio -oil and burnable gas using
microwave pyrolysis and hydrothermal treatment. This would create a win -win situation where water
and air conditions are preserved while renewable energy is generated.
2d) Clearly state the anticipated environmental outcomes/benefits associated with this project and the
likelihood of achieving them.
The uptake of excess nutrients by algae will improve water quality prior to being discharged to a
public water body. The by- product of improved water quality will be a 100 percent renewable fuel
that can be converted into a bio -fuel. The remaining biomass may be further utilized in multiple
different ways.
This will be the fast step of a process to determine the most effective medium for growing algae
using wastewater. Algae and other forts of biomass are already being used to produce bio - fuels.
Growth rates of algae are exponentially greater when compared to other forms of biomass. It also
does not compete with food crops which removes it from the food versus fuel debate.
J o (Q-)
Expanding knowledge of algae growth and the appropriate mediums to be used will transform how
fuels are produced in the future. The outcome of this project will determine which strains of algae are
most productive with multiple growth mediums.
2e) What procedures (criteria, methods, and controls) will be used to identify, record, and compile
pertinent information to measure the success of the project?
Objective 1 : Screen and select microalgae strains that has fast growth rate in the wastewater environment.
Method Wastewaters from different treatment stages have their own characteristics. The nutrients
components will be identified first. Then various algae species will be screened on these wastewaters.
Criteria The species that survive and have fast growth rate will be selected as the candidate. The algae
biomass and oil production will be evaluated.
Objective 2 : Improve and optimize photobioreactor design and operational and control strategies to
improve the desired total algal biomass production and maximize nitrogen and phosphorus removal rate
for the wastewater.
Method Since nitrogen and phosphorus are the fundamental nutrition elements of algae, higher algal
biomass production results in higher nitrogen and phosphorus removal rates. Algae growth rate is affected
by nutrients, temperature, CO2, light, and mixing. However controlling more factors in desired ranges
may increase operational cost of the system. In any given condition, the nutrients and CO consumption
rate, temperature will be monitored on daily basis. Biomass production and nutrients removal rates will be
tested with different harvesting rates.
Criteria: An optimized operational strategy will be developed to obtain high biomass production while
keeping the cost low.
Ob ective 3 : Conduct energy balance and techno - economical feasibility analysis of the algae production
system.
Method Based on the developed operational strategy, the energy balance and economical analysis will be
conducted. The energy consumed on producing one pound of algae biomass will he calculated.
2f) What is the potential for future dissemination of project results and/or the potential to apply project
concepts elsewhere in Minnesota (including outreach and education)?
This program is unique because we will be utilizing a variety of different wastewater feed stocks in
our research. By researching multiple wastewater streams we can increase the possibility of the
technology being used in other sectors. If successful this process has the potential to be used at any
facility that produces wastewater. Upon project completion our results could be shared with other
entities to develop their own processes. This technology may also serve as a means to remove excess
nutrients from takes and rivers in the future while generating revenue through the production of Bio-
diesel.
Some city staff members involved with the project are active members in many different
organizations such as, MWOA, MESERB, MRWA, AWWA that could be used as outlets to share the
project results.
Part 3. Experience and Qualifications (applicant, significant participants, support,
authorization)
1 6 C)
3a) Applicant's experience and qualifications related to implementing and completing this type of
project
The City of Hutchinson and its staff have always supported innovative technologies. The City has
been involved with designing and implementing multiple unique projects in its operations including:
Creekside Source Seperated Organics and Composting Facility, Membrane Bioreactors at the
Wastewater Treatment Facility, Class A pelletized Biosolids at the Wastewater Treatment Facility,
Reverse Osmosis and Biological Filtration treatment technologies at the Water Treatment Facility.
Being part of these innovative practices has provided the experience to think with an open mind and
to make informed decisions on these cutting edge project types that are not typically applied to
municipal operations. The selection, implementation, and operation of these innovative systems
shows that City staff is capable of not only thinking but also operating outside of the box.
i Significant participants (provide contact information) and their experience and qualifications
Dr. Roger Ruan
University of Minnesota
Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering
1390 Eckles Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108 -6005
(612)625 -1710
email: ruanx001 @umn.edu
B.S., 1983, Beijing Agricultural Engineering University
M.S., 1988 Oklahoma State University
Ph.D., 1991 University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign
Holds faculty appointments in the:
UofM Department of Food Science
UofM Department of Bio -Based Products
Conducting research on the conversion of Biomass to Energy
John Paulson
City of Hutchinson
Environmental Specialist
1 I 1 Hassan St SE
Hutchinson, MN 55350
(320)234 -5682
email: jpaulson @ci.hutchinson.mn.us
A.S., Vermilion Community College
Brian Mehr
City of Hutchinson
Wastewater Superintendent
I I I Hassan St SE
Hutchinson, MN 55350
(320)234 -4233
email: bmehr @ci.hutchinson.mn.us
B.S., St. Cloud State University
A.A.S., Water Environment Technologies, St. Cloud Technical College
Ic�&_
N Letter(s) of Support
See attachment
3d) Board Resolution(s)
See attachment
Part 4. Cost Effectiveness and Economic Feasibility of Project (realistic budget;
secured matching funds)
4a) Secured Matching funds (submit documentation as necessary if the applicant is not the sole source of
the matching funds)
Matching funds are currently budgeted in our 2009 Wastewater Department budget. The council
resolution approving the use of the budgeted funds is attached
4b) Need for State funding
Matching funds are currently budgeted in our 2009 Wastewater Department budget. During this slow
economy our municipal budget has tightened significantly. The likelihood of this project being
initiated without an additional funding source is minimal. While the initial cost in advancing this
technology is marginal the potential economical benefits could have a profound impact on many
public and private sectors.
4c) Work Plan, Budget and Expenditures
• 4c.1) Project Scope and Work Plan:
Focus Area
Emerging Issues
Preferred Project
Clean Technology/Best Practices Demonstration Sites
Goal Statement
The goal of this project is to evaluate the economical and practical feasibility of producing algae
biomass by using wastewater. The specific objectives and tasks are to:
(1) Screen and select microalgae strains that have fast growth rates in the wastewater environment,
(2) Improve and optimize photobioreactor design and operational and control strategies to improve
the desired total algal biomass production and maximize nitrogen and phosphorus removal rate for the
wastewater,
(3) conduct energy balance and techno - economical feasibility analysis of the algae production
system.
,(-)ca)
Proiect Evaluation Plan
The scope of the project allows for ongoing evaluation throughout the duration of the project.
Objectives 2 and 3 are focused on evaluating the researched results and economic feasibility
or producing biomass with the wastewater at our Wastewater Treatment Facility. The results
from the project will be thoroughly evaluated and compiled to determine the success of the
overall project. Even if project results do not support the projects feasibility at this time the
results will be valuable for future reference as economic conditions and utility costs change.
Objectives /Tasks (follow format for listing of each Objective/Task):
Objective 1.
Screen and select microalgae strains that have fast growth rate in the wastewater
environment.
Obiective 2.
Improve and optimize photobioreactor design and operational and control strategies to
improve the desired total algal biomass production and maximize nitrogen and phosphors
removal rate for the wastewater.
Objective 3.
1c) )
Task IA: Collecting algae cultures
Task IB: Screen algae species on wastewater environment
Task 2A: Evaluate algae biomass production at different operational strategies.
Task 213: Evaluate nitrogen and phosphors removal rate.
Based on the developed operational strategy, the energy balance and economical analysis will
be conducted. The energy consumed on producing one pound of algae biomass will be
calculated.
Task 3: Conduct energy balance and techno- economical feasibility analysis of the algae
production system.
Timeframe: 2 months
4c.2) Budget and Expenditures — An expenditure budget should be generated for each
Objective/Task identified in the project Work Plan, then the total of all the Objectives are to be
reflected on a separate budget page. You may choose to:
• use the word document Example provided in the Instructions, or
• use the formulated sample spreadsheet provided as Appendix C, or
• create your own formulated excel spreadsheet
I (--� c�-
(non - formulated table; see Appendix C for formulated spreadsheet; complete shaded
areas)
[Insert information specific to your project. Create a separate table for each Objective identified in your Work
Plan.]
Project Budget and Expenditure Report Period Ending
June 30, 2011
I. II. Ill. IV. V. VI. VII.
Cost Category Unit Cost Quantity Grant Match Match Total Expended Expended Cumulative
(Hours /Amount) Funds Cash In -kind Budget Previous This Expenditure
Exp./Budget Periods Period V + VI
OBJECTIVE 1 of 3.: Screen and select mieroalgae strains that have fast growth rata In the wastewater environment
Task
W Collectino aI ae cultures
/hr,
hrs
/hr,
hrs
Lab Supplies
720
720
Lab Analysis
500
500.
Travel
625
625
SUBTOTAL
Task 16 Screen algae sp
ec'as on wastewater
environment
hrs
hrs.
Lab Supplies
720
720
Lab Analysis
a
500
500
Greenhouse Rental
1000.
1000
Travel
625
625
SUBTOTAL
OBJECTIVE .1 -TOTAL
OBJECTIVE 2 of 3: Improve and optim W photobloreactor design and operational and control strategies to improve the desired b
biomass production and maximise nitrogen and phosphors removal rate for the wastewater.
Task 2A) Evaluate algae biomass production at different
o rational strat ies
/hr.
hrs
/hr. I
his
Lab Supplies
1440
1440.
Lab Analysis
1000
1000
SUBTOTAL
Task. 25 Evaluate N en
and Phosphors
removal
rate.
/hr:
his
/hr.
hrs
thr.
his
Lab Supplies
1440
1440
Lab Analysis
1000
1000
SUBTOTAL
OBJECTIVE 2 - TOTAL
OBJECTIVE 3 of 3: Based on the developed operational strategy, the energy balance and economical analysis will be conducted.
energy consumed on producing one pound of algae biomass will be calculated.
�o(92)
� b LO-)
Period Ending June 30,
2011
ITEMIZED OBJECTIVES
BUDGET
OBJECTIVE 1 - TOTAL
OBJECTIVE 2 - TOTAL
OBJECTIVE 3 - TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
It Lq)_
III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII.
Expended Expended Cumulative Budge
Grant Match Match Total Previous This Expend. Balanc
Funds Cash In -kind Budaet Periods Period (V + VI) (IV - VI
• 4c.3) Gantt Chart (Project timeline by Objectives/Tasks)
Objective
2009
July
Au
Se
Oct
Nov
2009
Dec
Ob 1:
Task A
x
x
Task B
x
x
Task C
Obj ective 2:
Task A
x
x
x
x
Task B
x
x
x
x
O bjective 3:
Task A x x
1c, a)
Hutchinson City Center
Ill Hassan street SE
Hutchinson, MN 55350 -2522
320 - 587- 5151/Eax 320 - 2344240
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FRONT: Gary Plotz, City Administrator
DATE: February 5, 2009
SUBJECT: Reductions in Motor Vehicle and Planning /Zoning/Building
Based on reductions in revenues (both LGA and local fee -based services), I recommend
reductions in areas at this time. I do not feel we should wait to take action, as this will
compound the challenge of balancing the city budget over the next two years.
According to the governor, Hutchinson's local government aid (LGA) will be cut $850,000 to
$900,000 by 2010. Indications from the State of Minnesota are that the state deficit is likely to
grow larger. The next briefing from the Governor will be in late March.
In addition to revenues from the state, we are seeing a decline in the local fees collected in the
area of planning /zoning/building and in the area of motor vehicles. Specifically, the number of
large commercial or non - profit projects are down, along with new housing starts. Last year there
were only fourteen new houses built in Hutchinson. Smaller projects (remodeling /additions)
have sustained the number of applications and the number of inspections.
In motor vehicle, there are many trends working against the budget. Total motor vehicle fees are
down approximately $6,500.00 through calendar year 2008. We see slippage of fee revenues
from local dealer activity and special fees, such as passports.
Another trend that is going to increasingly impact our local department of vehicle fees and other
local departments of vehicles across the state is the ability for customers to complete transactions
on -line or at kiosks. Even titling of vehicles is anticipated to be online, as the State of Minnesota
is updating the software capabilities. Specifically, the revenue per transaction (locally received)
is $4.50 per pre -bill and $8.00 per title. They have also decreased the payment to the local
department of vehicle offices for passports from $35.00 to $25.00. Although there are some
proposals within the Minnesota legislature to revise fees, I believe we cannot count on these
proposed fee revisions in view of the economy.
For all of these reasons, I have met numerous times with these departments (and others), and for
the reasons previously noted, we need to adjust our expenses. Each department head has been
given the flexibility to determine how to most effectively conserve resources.
Printed on recycled paper -
Motor Vehicle
The State of Minnesota Department of Driver Vehicle Services has regulations requiring our
driver vehicle services operation to be open a minimum of 40 hours per week. There is a
provision for a variance to the minimum hour requirement.
Based on trends that we are seeing, we requested a trial period of 90 days (March 1 through May
31) to reduce our hours of operations per week from 40 to 32. The new office hours would be
9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on
Thursday. In summary, the office will be closed on Monday. We would be adjusting the
evening we are open slightly from 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. This would reduce part -time hours in
the department by 22 hours, or an approximate savings of $500.00 per week. To place it in
perspective, on an annualized basis, this would be approximately $22,000.00 of savings
annualized to the end of the year.
Planning /Zoning/Building
The total fee revenue in 2008 has dropped significantly (please see enclosure). Our Finance
Director will be reviewing this in more detail. The number of field inspections has been at more
of a sustainable level in 2007 versus 2008, therefore at this time, we are recommending no
change in this particular area of the department.
On the administration side of Planning /Zoning /Building, we are recommending a reduction of a
total of 16 hours per week, until further notice. This would involve a transition from full -time
(1.0 FTE) to part-time (.8 FTE), or a reduction of 8 hours per week for the two employees this
effects. To place this in perspective on an annualized basis, this would be $16,000.00.
As part of the change in administrative staffing in Planning/Zoning/Building, we may change the
method of answering the City phones to an automated basis, similar to that in use at Hutchinson
Area Health Care and the Hutchinson Medical Center and, furthermore, adjusting the front
counter operations (hours /staffing) in Public Works /Planning /Zoning /Building. We also will be
re- assigning some responsibilities to accomplish this reorganization.
From an overall, city -wide perspective, you will be seeing reorganizations within and between
departments in the upcoming months. The City Administrator and department directors are, on a
weekly basis, reviewing operations city -wide.
We do recommend taking action at this time, approving what is proposed in this memorandum.
With regard to the motor vehicle department only, we recommend formally adopting a
Resolution that we will forward to the Minnesota Department of Driver Vehicle Services.
�DLb)
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
OF apa�,C.
Driver and Vehicle Services
��
"
445 Minnesota Street • Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
Phone: 651.296.6911 • Fax: 651.296.2224 • TTY: 651.282.6555
P
9 �OF
www.dps.state.mn.us
'IN NE
January 28, 2009
The Honorable Steven W. Cook, Mayor and Gary D. Plotz, City Administrator
Alcohol
City of Hutchinson
and Gambling
11 Hassan Street SE
Enforcement
Hutchinson, Minnesota 55350 -2522
ARMER /911
Program
Dear Mayor Cook and Mr. Plotz:
Bureau of
Criminal
I have received your variance request for a reduction in office hours from 40 to 32 hours per week at
Apprehension
Deputy Registrar #53 and Driver's Licence Station #699. Proposed office hours aie from 9:00 a.m. to
Driver
4:30 p.m, on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Thursday. Your request
and vehicle
for a variance has been approved under Minnesota Rule Chapter 7406.05400 Subd. 2, effective
Services
March 1, 2009 through May 31, 2009, and is subject to the following conditions:
Homeland
Security and
Should other Deputy Registrar or Driver's License Agent offices located in the same geographical
Emergency
area request a reduction in hours or services, the variance to the City of Hutchinson may be
Management
terminated prior to May 31, 2009.
Minnesota
0 Notice of reduced hours must be posted at the office and also published in a qualified newspaper or
State Patrol
on a radio station in the county or city in which the office is located. Notice must be published at
Office of
least two weeks before the reduction in hours.
Communications
0 Notice must contain the dates and times that the office will be closed and the location and address
1, of the nearest Deputy Registrar and Drivers License office where alternative services can be
Office of
Justice Programs
obtained as well as the web site for the Department of Public Safety, Driver Vehicle Services
(www. d ps. state. m n. us).
Office of
A copy of the posted notice must be sent to DVS prior to the effective date of the variation.
Traffic Safety
State Fire
Consideration for extending this variance will be given if the following items are gathered and reported
Marshal and
Pipeline Safety
to the D b May 1, 2009,
p y y
• Detailed cost savings analysis resulting from this reduction in hours.
• Survey of customer satisfaction regarding the hours and service of this office.
Effective June 1, 2009, The City of Hutchinson must resume normal operations in accordance with the
Rules as they relate to hours of service. If you agree to the variance proposal, please provide me with
a letter that verifies that the conditions of the variance have been met, and that you intend to complete
the analysis and survey. Please respond to me by February 23, 2009.
Sincerely,
Patricia McCormack for Commissioner Campion
Director Vehicle Services
cc: Roxanne LaDoucer
Joan Kopcinski
Maureen Murphy
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1 b o
MOTOR VEHICLE INFORMATION
2005 2006 2007 12/3112008 2008 2009
Actual Amount Actual Amount Actual Amount YTD Actual Final Budget Approved Budget
005 MOTOR VECHICLE
4255 MOTOR VEHICLE FEES
206,815.00
221,615.00
220,444.00
217,574.00
256,000.00
243,000.00
4265 OTHER FEES
35,175.00
22,604.00
18,557.00
8,201.00
-
-
4267 PASSPORT APPLICATION
-
-
-
12,980.00
-
-
4268 PASSPORT PHOTO
-
-
-
8,233.00
-
-
4720 REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS
12.00
6,924.00
314.00
75.00
-
-
4730 OTHER REVENUES
10,090.00
(7,555.00)
1,182.00
2,501.00
-
-
TOTAL REVENUES
252,092.00
236 664.00
240,497.00/
249 564.00
256 000.00
243 000.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
824.00
1,016.00
422.00
587.00
800.00
824.00
6110 WAGES REG.EMPLOYEES
51,778.00
40,824.00
56,958.00
63,014.00
67,565.00
71,471.00
6115 COLAIPERFORM
-
-
-
-
13,337.00
13,808.00
6120 WAGES PERM PART -TIME
72,098.00
80,717.00
92,479.00
96,232.00
84,810.00
100,758.00
6121 WAGES PERM PART -TIME OVERTIME
100.00
70.00
-
-
-
-
6122 WAGES TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
8,081.00
7,894.00
-
-
-
-
6130 COMP TIME PAID
90.00
30.00
140.00
52.00
-
-
6131 VACATION PAY
7,485.00
9,317.00
8,939.00
6,977.00
-
-
6132 HOLIDAY PAY
5,957.00
5,868.00
6,634.00
7,110.00
-
-
6133 SICK PAY
3,240.00
15,759.00
3,962.00
2,723.00
-
-
6137 SEVERANCE PAY
-
100.00
-
-
-
-
6141 PERA- COORDINATED
7,934.00
9,629.00
10,555.00
11,433.00
6.850.00
8,665.00
6145 FICA -CITY PORTION
9,009.00
9,757.00
10,220.00
10,612.00
6,533.00
7,959.00
6150 MEDICARE
2,107.00
2,282.00
2,390.00
2,482.00
1,528.00
1,861.00
6160 EMPL.HEALTH & INS. BENEFIT
14,789.00
10,438.00
11,270.00
10,935.00
11,639.00
12,474.00
6170 WORKERS COMP INSURANCE
754.00
956.00
947.00
1,191.00
536.00
1,044.00
6105 TOTAL SALARIES & FRINGE BENEFI
183,422.00
193,642.00
204,495.00
212,761.00
192,798.00
218,040.00
6205 OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,077.00
3,085.00
705.00
155.00
950.00
979.00
6210 OPERATING SUPPLIES
2,268.00
3,708.00
2,613.00
2,562.00
2,500.00
2,575.00
6216 SAFETY SUPPLIES
10.00
131.00
55.00
-
100.00
103.00
6230 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
20.00
50.00
52.00
6200 TOTAL SUPPLIES, REPAIRS & MAIN
3,375.00
6,924.00
3,373.00
2,717.00
3,600.00
3,709.00
6310 COMMUNICATIONS
1,789.00
1,985.00
1,640.00
1,736.00
1,800.00
1,854.00
6311 POSTAGE
2,211.00
1,749.00
1,720.00
2,013.00
2,200.00
2,266.00
6320 TRAVEL SCHOOL CONFERENCE
824.00
1,016.00
422.00
587.00
800.00
824.00
6330 ADVERTISING
217.00
200.00
286.00
300.00
300.00
309.00
6340 PRINTING & PUBLISHING
350.00
266.00
461.00
118.00
350.00
361.00
6370 CONTRACT REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
448.00
593.00
1,922.00
58.00
900.00
927.00
6385 DATA PROC EQUIPMENT RENTAL
1,280.00
2,137.00
997.00
61.00
2,000.00
2,060.00
6306 TOTAL OTHER SERVICES & CHARGES
7,119.00
7,945.00
7,448.00
4,872.00
8,350.00
8,601.00
6901 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
643.00
767.00
470.00
810.00
850.00
850.00
6909 MISCELLANEOUS
822.00
72.00
125.00
38.00
200.00
200.00
6910 PERMITS
100.00
100.00
6900 TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS
1,465.00
838.00
595.00
848.00
1,150.00
1,150.00
7030 MACHINERY &EQUIPMENT
1,749.00
1,866.00
7000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAYS
1,749.00
1,866.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
195,381.00
211,098.00
217,777.00
221,198.00
205,898.00
231,500.00
REVENUES OVERI(UNDER) EXPENDITURES
56,711.00
25,566.00
22,720.00
28,366.00
50,102.00
11,500.00
-
kb(-16-)
Number of Planning & Zoning Applications
(Plats, Variances, Conditional Use Permits, Etc.)
Does not include.pity initiated ordinance amendments. (2008: 6 ordinances amended)
Total Number of Permits and Valuation
City of Hutchinson
Joint Planning Area
Total
2004
82
20
102
2005
69
19
88
2006
63
16
79
2007
;, i 81
14
95
2008
"" 52
16
68
Does not include.pity initiated ordinance amendments. (2008: 6 ordinances amended)
Total Number of Permits and Valuation
'separate mechanical permits started in 2007, previously part of plumbing permit
Shows an increase in number of permits from 2007 to 2008, but a decrease in size of
projects /construction valuation, which results in decreased permit revenue.
Overall, number of building permits has been fairly consistent, with an average 912 over
5 years, but the construction valuation has varied considerably.
Number of " New" Residential Housing Permits and Value
plus a month to month comparison for the last three years on this item.
Building Permits
Issued
Total all permits issued
(includes building, plumbing, mechanical, etc)
Construction
Valuation
2004
949
145
$38.8 million
2005
915
105
23.44 million
2006
921
58
44.9 million
2007
858
1,198
26.4 million
2008
915
1,249
16 million
'separate mechanical permits started in 2007, previously part of plumbing permit
Shows an increase in number of permits from 2007 to 2008, but a decrease in size of
projects /construction valuation, which results in decreased permit revenue.
Overall, number of building permits has been fairly consistent, with an average 912 over
5 years, but the construction valuation has varied considerably.
Number of " New" Residential Housing Permits and Value
plus a month to month comparison for the last three years on this item.
(see attachment for month to month data for years 2004 - 2008)
I ol✓L)
New Residential buildings
(includes all types, Single
family, twins, & multi-family)
Units
Valuation
2004
80
145
14.7 million
2005
67
105
11.4 million
2006
51
58
8.4 million
2007
28
32
4.7 million
20
i' 14
18.
2.6 million
(see attachment for month to month data for years 2004 - 2008)
I ol✓L)
Other Measurable Factors to Compare
Total Number of Permits and Inspections
separate mecnanicai permits starteo in [uut, previously part of plumbing permit
• Total number of building permits increased by 57 from 2007 to 2008
• Total number of all permits issued by building dept. increased by 51 (includes
building, plumbing, mechanical, signs, etc.)
• Number of inspections decreased between 2008 and 2007 by 446 inspections,
which is approximately 1 less inspection a day than 2007.
I C) cb)
Number of
Inspections
Building Permits
Issued
Total all permits issued
(includes building, plumbing,
mechanical, etc
2004
3,122
949
2005
2,430
915
2006
2,894
921
2007
2,380
858
1,198
2008
1,934
915
1,249
separate mecnanicai permits starteo in [uut, previously part of plumbing permit
• Total number of building permits increased by 57 from 2007 to 2008
• Total number of all permits issued by building dept. increased by 51 (includes
building, plumbing, mechanical, signs, etc.)
• Number of inspections decreased between 2008 and 2007 by 446 inspections,
which is approximately 1 less inspection a day than 2007.
I C) cb)
2005 2006 2007 12131/2008
Actual Amount Actual Amount Actual Amount YTD Actual
MOTOR VEHICLE REVENUE BREAKDOW (4255)
DNR REVENUE
13,389.00
14,516.00
14,384.00
13,279.00
DRIVERS LICENSES
33,769.00
39,660.00
40,460.00
41,300.00
MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSING
158,682.00
166,629.50
164,903.25
162,305.00
FISH 8 GAME
975.00
809.50
696.75
689.50
TOTAL (OBJECT CODE 4255)
$ 206,815.00 $
221,615.00 $
220,444.00
$ 217,573.50
Increases in annual fees charged has somewhat offset the decline in the number of licenses, passports .... etc issued
PASSPORTS (OBJECT CODES 4265,4267,4268) $ 35,175.00 $ 22,604.00 $ 18,557.00 $ 29,414.00
Yearly Implement
Avg part-time EE Cost Savings March 1st
Budgeted at $23.00 Per hour... includes pert . pay
Going to 32 hours of operation as opposed to 40 hours
Reduce Staff hours by 22 hours per week, 52 wks a year $ 26,312.00 $ 22,264.00
� b(-6)
214
FE — — — n- 7 2009
Building and Plannin
Narne Staffing Reduction Calculati _ r Y01
1 0 FTE) � 2080 Hours
lio0n Febr
1
I —
nn -� PERA } Me01t01 _ Dental �Li161ne L ife I �Ia OWIN Y Wort Comp _ a
BONNIE JO Plan n Cowtlinatw� $ %0 Sala L Sal 6 20% t 45X e ]5% - a^Yee'�
S4]]]5.5 1 33966]21 -- f2 ]18.BBT $6]540 _ fJ 221851 510,511.40
f82 18 2
$049.12— -_ -__ Cost Per _
__� _. _L 1 L. _ 4
—� __. — Coat Per
59]]]$$2 8395512 $2]1686 $93540 $322495 _ $1001140 $049 t2 54000000 59218 8162.44 +— Em
11 TeM n Et519 531803.52 655 $1.7U
V- Pn 1 716, r t M $ 61 n In� Ina Cove 31644 In f 1 _ -L $1280081_
- y E284 ] $ 419] $2 1 3321$32584 $36912 $32- 000001 SBiM $10].58856395 1 ]94 SMe ]0 52.13] 24 S4 J 25 $3691 S66 S6J 95 lA_NNI�AUMINISTRATIO 4 1 1 529621 D EBRA _ +l O .W FTE) 18nwl PERa Me01ol - -I Oabl Life lnn. - LNe OlaaMl �101096� — _ v - �M � � ___ � * 1 �EmPYe. __. 'Empby00ITOY1Wkly 1 ^9 R6tlucM Ea %95 525]9.98 109119 1 _ __...- -M1.__ -_ ��Htgs Pe P P9551 $84912 '539,00000 -Y $]400. 5129951. 5238.9] _ -. __ 1 coat Px I total Par DwtPx Nama Je TN MReb 38,220.42 SJ 955.12 3212019 - — - om LAHNINGADMMISTMSN inatorf 522 %9t�3022042_ $ 1 Flee— N98 5 1 32 M 1181 $10 .. X $SO 12 Cov f f]408 f129 95� $236.9]� --- - 1 Et 08]]] + 5213]1
Salary 820X 145X 8]5X ^ B ONNIE + y - + _..1 5432564 3369121 E %,00000 5/992 705% 5158] 1 533]0]]8 � 581823 $285564 5140208 SJ2009 E1 ] %59 ' 5285 5140236 _ 553509 f1 ]0659 $6326 fi41 _538912 I __ _ $158T5 53370773 L BUILDINOINSPECTION _. I T l.- -- 1 r -- _ -. - TOTA G WKLY 1.
OOKS, DEBRA P rtT $151 E2520202L + -- ' 1 -- I -TOTA 6. _ $352 75
r 1 f2526282r - —r L $4982 336% .`.-
48 Weeks 4
$16.3 26.62
2/11 12/31/09
` C7
V
RESOLUTION NO. 13533
A RESOLUTION TEMPORARILY LIMITING THE HOURS OF OPERATION
OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVERS LICENSE
STATION
WHEREAS, due to economic recession currently affecting Minnesota, the City
of Hutchinson has received and will continue to receive less state aid; and,
WHEREAS, due to these same economic conditions, fewer vehicles are being
sold and registered in our area; and,
WHEREAS, because of this, the Hutchinson Drivers License Station and
Registrar will not have sufficient income to maintain its current hours of operation; and,
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety has authorized a
reduction in the hours of operation of the Hutchinson Deputy Registrar's Office and
Drivers License Station from 40 hours to 32 hours based on the following conditions:
• Should other Deputy Registrar or Driver's License Agent offices located
in the same geographical area request a reduction in hours or services, the
variance to the City of Hutchinson may be terminated prior to May 31,
2009.
• Notice of reduced hours must be posted at the office and also published in
a qualified newspaper or on a radio station in the county or city in which
the office is located. Notice must be published at least two weeks before
the reduction in hours.
• Notice must contain the dates and times that the office will be closed and
the location and address of the nearest Deputy Registrar and Drivers
License office where alternative services can be obtained as well as the
web site for the Department of Public Safety, Driver Vehicle Services
( www.dps. state. mn.us
• A copy of the posted notice must be sent to DVS prior to the effective date
of the variation.
Consideration for extending this variance will be given if the following items
are gathered and reported to the Department by May 1, 2009.
Detailed cost savings analysis resulting from this reduction in hours.
Survey of customer satisfaction regarding the hours and service of this
office.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUTCHINSON:
bcO
THAT the hours of the Deputy Registrar 453 and Driver's License Station #699
located in the City of Hutchinson are reduced to 32 hours per week in recognition of the
conditions listed above.
Adopted by the Hutchinson City Council this 10` day of February 2009.
ATTEST:
Gary D. Plotz, City Administrator
Steven W. Cook, Mayor
I -b t1)
Hutt
An Economic Development Authority
Date: February 4, 2009
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Miles R. Seppelt
EDA Director
RE: Resolution authorizing relocation of JOBZ acres
I am writing to request City Council authorization for the relocation of JOBZ acres from their
current location (on the Stritesky Property) to two new locations: the new industrial park and a
lot fronting Hwy 7.
With the development of the new industrial park and the possibility of other potential projects,
we need to reposition JOBZ acres so that they could be used by potential economic
development projects, if needed.
The state Department of Employment & Economic Development must authorize all such
transfers of JOBZ acres, and one of their requirements is a resolution from the City Council
approving the transfer.
I will be at the City Council meeting of February 10`" to present the request in person and
answer any questions you may have.
In the meantime, if you have any questions or need additional information, please give me a call
at 234 -4223.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
kbcc)
