The URL can be used to link to this page

cp03-09-1982 c cHUTCH INSON CITY CALENDAR WEEK OF March 7 TO March 13 .1982 WEDNESDAY -10- IU SUNDAY -7- • �< u THURSDAY -11- MONDAY 8- Noon - City Council invited to be luncheon guests of City Auditing Firm (Meet at City Hall) FRIDAY -12- TUESDAY -9- :00 P.M. - City Council Work- shop at City Hall :30 P.M. - City Council Meetin at City Hall SATURDAY -13- • 0 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1982 Call Meeting to Order - 7:30 P.M. ///2. Invocation - Reverend Keith Duehn ✓3. Consideration of Minutes - Special Meetings of February 9, 1982 and February 16, 1982 and Regular Meeting of February 22, 1982 Action - Motion to approve - Motion to approve as amended V14. Public Hearing -- None 5. Communications, Requests and Petitions ,/(a) Consideration of Request for Fire Marshal to Attend International Association of Arson Investigators Annual Meeting on March 10, 1982 Action - Motion to reject - Motion to approve /(b) Consideration of Request for Building Official to Attend Minnesota Building Officials Association Meeting on March 17, 1982 Action - Motion to reject - Motion to approve 6. Resolutions and Ordinances ,,,/(a) Ordinance No. 2/82 - Ordinance Amending Section 715:20 of the 1974 Ordinance Code of the City of Hutchinson, Entitled "No Parking Areas," By Adding Sub- division No. 11 Thereto, Relative to "Parking, Local Regulations" Action - Motion to reject - Motion to waive second reading and adopt V(b) Resolution No. 7085 - Resolution for Purchase Action - Motion to reject - Motion to waive reading and adopt 7. Reports of Officers, Boards and Commissions ✓(a) Monthly Report of Building Official - February 1982 Action - Order by Mayor received for filing r COUNCIL AGENDA MARCH 9, 1982 0 ✓(b) Minutes of Airport Commission dated February 17, 1982 Action - Order by Mayor received for filing /c) Minutes of Senior Advisory Board dated February 10, 1982 Action - Order by Mayor received for filing 8. Unfinished Business v/(a) Consideration of Awarding Bid for 3/4 Ton Pickup for Fire Department Action - Motion -to _ reject - Motion -t6 award bid /(b) Update Report -on Public Buildings Meeting Building Code and Fire Code (DEFERRED FEBRUARY 22., 1982) Action - (c) Consideration of 1982 Improvement Projects: (DEFERRED JANUARY 26, 1982) a) Project 82 -40 b) Project 82 -43 c) Project -82 -44 d) Project 82 -34 through 82 -42 Action - Motion to reject - Motion to waive reading and adopt Resolution Ordering Improvements and Preparation of Plans and Specifications y/(d) Consideration of 1982 Tree Planting Policy (DEFERRED DECEMBER 22, 1981) Action - Motion to reject - Motion to approve policy 9. New Business ✓(a) Consideration of Special Use Permit for Swanke Motors, Inc. Action - Motion to reject - Motion to approve and issue permit ,,�b) Consideration of Application for Snow Removal Permit by Brian Block Action - Motion to reject - Motion to approve and issue permit V(c) Consideration of Option to Purchase (Russell J. Meade) - Action - Motion to reject - Motion to approve -2- COUNCIL AGENDA MARCH 9, 1982 • k d) Consideration of Management Plan for Senior Center Action - Motion to reject - Motion to approve management plan ✓(e) Consideration of Report of Substantial Completion on New Fire Station and Authorization to Vacate Existing Fire Station by March 12, 1982 Action - Motion to reject - Motion to accept report and authorize relocation f(f) Consideration of Monitoring Off- Street Parking Lots Action - Motion to reject - Motion to approve and authorize monitoring position J(g) Consideration of Accepting Application and $1,000 Fee from Miller, Miller & Mac to Proceed with Industrial Revenue Bond Action - Motion to reject - Motion to approve application �(h) Consideration of Establishing Public Hearing Date of April 13, 1982 for Amendment to Tax Increment Plan to Accommodate Development on S &L Property (Presentation by Bill Fahey) Action - Motion to reject - Motion to set public hearing date ,/(i) Consideration of Request by Citizens Bank & Trust Co. for Six Parking Spaces Limited to 15- Minute Parking Action - Motion to reject - Motion to approve - Motion to amend Ordinance A) Consideration of Relocation of Recreation Offices and Motor Vehicle Department Action - '/(k) Consideration of Board of Review on May 21, 1982 at 10:00 A.M. Action - Motion to reject - Motion to approve date J(1) Consideration -of Request for 30 -Day Extension for Hospital Auxiliary Thrift Shop at Old Armory Action - Motion to reject - Motion to approve extension 10. Miscellaneous �(a) Communications from City Administrator 11. Claims, Appropriations and Contract Payments J(a) Verified Claims Action - Motion to reject - Motion to approve and authorize payment J12. Adjournment -3- MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1982 The special meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Mayor DeMeyer, with the fol- lowing present: Alderman Mike Carls, Alderman Kenneth Gruenhagen, and Alderman Ted Beatty, in addition to Mayor James G. DeMeyer. Absent: Alderman John Mlinar. Also present were: City Administrator Gary D. Plotz, City Accountant Kenneth B. Merrill, Chief Water Plant Operator Dick Nagy, and Charles Barger from Rieke, Carroll, Muller Associates. Mr. Charles Barger of RCM gave a presentation regarding expansion of the Hutchinson water treatment plant. He reported that in 1967 RCM was hired to develop a long - range water program for the City. In 1972 construction was done on a new well (No. 6), booster pump-(No. 3),- two elevated storage tanks, new aerator and filter media re- - placement, and distribution system strengthening. These improvements increased the capacity of the plant,-and the plant met the requirements of the community. It was further reported that in 1976 an unanticipated population growth and change in the Fire Department affected the plant operation. It was, therefore, necessary for RCM to prepare a revised schedule. The proposal was to construct an extension to the existing water treatment plant consisting of additional aeration and detention basin, two MGD dual media filters, new chemical feed area, new high service pump sta- tions with relocated pumps and new centralized control room. Grant-money-vas avail- able at that time so the City of Hutchinson requested a grant. The grant was denied, and the preliminary plans were put side. By 1978 it was recognized there was a need for additional aeration and filter capa- city and chemical vat room. This is marked down by the State on their annual inspec- tion. _ Mr. Barger stated that RCM has completed the plans and specifications for the design of the water treatment plant expansion. The plans call for additional aeration and filter capacity, a change in the chemical vat operation, and a new pumping station. The estimated cost of the project is $1,400,000.00. It was recommended to take bids on March 18, 1982 at 2:00 P.M. It was projected.that by 1985 an- additional booster pump (No. 4) and well (No. 7) would need to be added. By 1990 it was anticipated another well or high service pump would be necessary. In the past, the City has done no softening to the water. However, the water treat- ment plant has been laid out in a long -range plan so that softening could be added in the future, if so desired. Mr. Barger pointed out that hard water is not a health hazard. The City of Hutchinson has a good supply of water, and the iron has about 2 parts, which is not excessive. The wells have a large capacity, and there is room for two more wells. Alderman Carls inquired how much cheaper it would be for the community to soften the water. Dick Nagy responded that it was cheaper for the City do do the softening than using a home water softener. H COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1982 Mr. Barger recommended a lime sulfur process for water softening, but he pointed out the biggest problem would be to eliminate the waste. The City would end up with a lime product which could be hauled out by the truckload. Alderman Beatty asked if it would be cost effective to install the fourth high serv- ice pump and well at this time. The response from Mr. Barger was that it was not needed at this time, and he would not recommend construction now. Discussion was given to the interest rate on the bonds. Alderman Carls questioned City Accoutant Merrill if he had figured what would happen to the water rates result- ing from the improvements. Mr. Barger stated the users are the ones who pay for the improvements. The rates would have to go up to pay for the new equipment. µz: Plant Operator Nagy reported that the existing filters aren't what they used to be, and for the past five years the City has been told the filters are deteriorating and need replacement. Also, some other equipment_ -is old and obsolete and should be ram: placed. -- However, -the City needs the other wells before the necessary replacementan be done. Alderman Beatty asked Mr. Nagy how much water was pumped in one day. He responded that 2.8 million gallons was the most .pumped in one day, and 3 million gallons is the maximum. The meeting adjourned at 5:05 P.M. -2- 0 MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1982 The special meeting was called to order by Mayor DeMeyer at 4:25 P.M. Present were: Alderman Mike Carls, Alderman Ted Beatty, Alderman Kenneth Gruenhagen and Mayor James G. DeMeyer. Absent: Alderman John Mlinar. Also present were: City Administrator Gary D. Plotz, City Accountant Kenneth B. Merrill, and Fire Chief Lloyd Schlueter. Publication No. 2893, Invitation for Bids, Purchase of A 3/4 Ton H.D. Four -Wheel Drive Pickup with Options, was read by Mayor DeMeyer. The following bids were then opened and read: Swanke Motors A. Fenderside Pickup with Automatic Hutchinson, MN Transmission (E62) (1982 GMC 3/4 Ton) $10,788.81 - 6-8 Weeks Delivery B. Wideside Pickup with Automatic Transmission (C6P)(1982 GMC 3/4 Ton) $10,680.94 - 6 -8 Weeks Delivery Wigen Chevrolet 1982 Chevrolet 3/4 Ton Pickup, Four -Speed Hutchinson, MN Transmission with Heavy Duty Chassis Equip- ment (Fleetside) $10,303.29 - Delivery 60 days from date of order. Alt. A; .8' Fleetside, Automatic Transmission with Oil Cooler $10,713.47 - Delivery 60 days from date of order. Alt. B. 8' Stepside, Automatic Transmission with Oil Cooler $10,833.47 - Delivery 60 days from date of order. Alt. C. 8' Stepside $10,411.99 - Alt. D. Size smaller tire would be available at $100.00 less. The motion was made by Alderman Beatty to refer the bids to the Fire Department for review and recommendation to the City Council. Seconded by Alderman Gruenhagen, the motion unanimously carried. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. 0� I • w • 1. CALL TO ORDER • MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1982 The meeting was called to order by Mayor DeMeyer at 7:30 P.M., with the follow- ing present: Alderman Mike Carls, Alderman John Mlinar, Alderman Kenneth Gruen - hagen, and Alderman Ted Beatty, in addition to Mayor James G. DeMeyer. Absent: None. Also present: City Administrator Gary D. Plotz and City Attorney James Schaefer. 2. INVOCATION _ - - In the absence of a pastor, there was a time of silent prayer. 3. MINUTES The minutes of the Special Meeting of February 2, 1982 were approved as read and the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 9, 1982 were approved as-amended upon motion by Alderman Carls, seconded by Alderman Mlinar and unani- mously carried. 4. PUBLIC HEARING None 5. COMMUNICATIONS, REQUESTS AND PETITIONS (a) CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR DOOR -TO -DOOR SOLICITATION After discussion, it was moved by Alderman Beatty to granb a permit to Gale Peterson to sell Zig Zigler Products door -to -door for one year. The motion was seconded by Alderman Mlinar and carried unanimously. 6. RESOLUTIONS AND`ORDINANCES (a) ORDINANCE NO. 1/82 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 464 CONCERNING ZONING REGULATIONS IN THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP (JOHN LIPKE) Alderman Carls inquired about the restrictive covenants and where they ap- plied. Attorney Schaefer responded that the covenants were contingencies of the Conditional Use Permit. Alderman Carls then questioned item 1 -a in the covenants and felt it should be reworded. Attorney Pat Flynn, representing Mr. John Lipke, pointed out the covenants -=� I COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1982 had been presented at the last Council meeting, and there was no change in them. There was no intent of putting restrictions on the City, and he would be agreeable to amending the wording. Following discussion, Alderman Mlinar moved to waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 643 entitled An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 464 Concerning Zoning Regulations In the City of Hutchinson and the Official Zoning Map (John Lipke). Seconded by Alderman Beatty, the motion carried, with Aldermen Mlinar, Gruenhagen, and Beatty and Mayor DeMeyer voting aye and Alderman Carls voting nay. (b) ORDINANCE NO. 2182 - ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 715:20 OF THE 1974 ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY-OF HUTCHINSON,- ENTITLED "NO PARKING AREAS" BY ADDING Sin-- NO. 11 THERETO, RELATIVE TO "PARKING, LOCAL REGULATIONS"- _ The Director--of Maintenance - Operations, - Ralph_Neumann, presented a drawing of the - area involved to be designated No Parking.- He- further stated the-- Ordinance had been amended since it was presented at the last Council meet- ing. After discussion, the motion was made by Alderman Beatty to waive the first reading of amended Ordinance No. 2/82 entitled Ordinance Amending Section 715:20 of the 1974 Ordinance Code of the City of Hutchinson, Entitled" "No Parking Areas" By Adding Subdivision No. ll Thereto; Relative to-"Parking', Local Regulations" and set the second reading for March 9, 1982. Seconded - by Alderman Gruenh agen, the motion unanimously carried. (c) RESOLUTION NO. 7080 - RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 6.07, C.5 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 464 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A FULL- SERVICE BANKING FACILITY IN A REQUESTED C -2 ZONE Discussion was given to the amendment of item 1 -a in the covenants, and it was recommended by the City Attorney to read as follows: "Should the City accept donation of the property from the owner or any subsequent owner, the City would be bound by the restrictive covenants placed upon the property." Alderman Beatty moved to waive reading and adopt Resolution No. 7080 entitled Resolution Granting Conditional Use Permit Under Section 6.07, C.5 of Zoning Ordinance No. 464 to Allow Construction and Operation of A Full- Service Bank- ing Facility In A Requested C -2 Zone, with the amended covenants. Seconded by Alderman Mlinar, the motion carried unanimously. (d) RESOLUTION NO. 7081 - RESOLUTION REQUESTING RELEASE OF DNR BASS POND EASE- MENT AND REQUEST FOR SPECIAL LEGISLATION (REQUESTED BY REP. ADOLPH KVAM) Following discussion, it was moved by Alderman Carls, seconded by Alderman Beatty and unanimously carried, to waive reading and adopt Resolution No. 7081 entitled Resolution Requesting Release of DNR Bass Pond Easement and Request for Special Legislation. 0 -2- 1 0 . 4 • COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1982 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (a) MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - JANUARY 1982 • There being no discussion, the report was ordered by the Mayor to be received for filing. (b) MINUTES OF TREE BOARD DATED DECEMBER 3, 1981 AND DECEMBER 16, 1981 There being no discussion, the minutes were ordered by the Mayor to be re- ceived for filing. (c) MINUTES OF HOSPITAL BOARD DATED DECEMBER 15, 1981, JANUARY 11, 1982 AND JANUARY 19, 1982 There being no discussion, the minutes were ordered by the Mayor _to be -re- ceived for filing. (d) MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION DATED JANUARY 19, 1982 AND JANUARY 22, 1982 There being no discussion, the minutes were ordered by the Mayor to be re- ceived for filing. (e) MINUTES OF PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD DATED FEBRUARY 3, 1982 There being no discussion, the minutes were ordered by the "Mayor'to be re- ceived for filing. (f)- MINUTES OF DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD DATED NOVEMBER 24, 1981 There being no discussion, the minutes were ordered by the Mayor to be re- ceived for filing. (g) MINUTES OF LIBRARY BOARD DATED FEBRUARY 11, 1982 AND FEBRUARY 17, 1982 There being no discussion, the minutes :were ordered by the Mayor to -be re- ceived for filing. (h) MINUTES OF TRANSPORTATION'BOARD DATED NOVEMBER 18, 1981 There being no discussion, the minutes were ordered by the Mayor to be re- ceived for filing. (i) MINUTES OF NURSING HOME BOARD DATED JANUARY 21, 1982 There being no discussion, the minutes were ordered by the Mayor to be re- ceived for filing. -3- COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1982 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (a) DISCUSSION OF SENIOR CENTER TAX INCREMENT BOND AND PARKING PROGRAM BONDS WITH FISCAL CONSULTANT (BILL FAHEY OF EHLERS & ASSOCIATES) AND BOND APPROVING ATTORNEY (JERRY GILLAGAN OF DORSEY LAW FIRM) The Fiscal Consultant, Mr. Bill Fahey of Ehlers & Associates, and the Bond Approving Attorney, Mr. Jerry Gillagan of the Dorsey Law Firm, were present at the Council meeting to answer questions and explain the Senior Center Tax Increment Bond and the Parking Program Bonds. At the conclusion of a two -hour discussion, -both of the - consultants assd the Council that -the City of Hutchinson was in good standing with their bond program. _ 7' (b) CONSIDERATION -OF CONFERENCES-AND SCHOOLS FOR BUDGET YEAR 1982 -- (DEFERRED FEBRUARY 9;-1982)- - - Inasmuch as the City recently reduced department budgets, it was recommended by Alderman Gruenhagen that each person ask permission from the City Council to attend a specific school, conference, etc. Alderman Gruenhagen moved to reject the list of conferences and schools as presented. The motion was seconded by Alderman Beatty and carried unaniwously. The motion was amended by Alderman Gruenhagen to include "for the year 1982." Seconded by Alderman Beatty, the motion unanimously carried. - (c) CONSIDERATION OF SELECTING DEVELOPER FROM TWO PROPOSALS FOR S & L SITE (DEFERRED FEBRUARY 9, 1982) Mr. Jim McClure of Miller, Miller & Mac stated the only presentation left to bring to the Council would be to request action be taken to approve the Downtown Development Advisory Board's recommendation for a larger project at the S &L site be done by Miller, Miller & Mac, with the use of industrial revenue bonds and tax increment financing. The larger project would be an increase of 3,000 square feet to the floor space of the building and a reduction in rent rate. The developer also stated that he has a written option from the owner for the S &L property, at a fixed purchase price. City Administrator Plotz poiAted out that in order to qualify for the tax increment financing, it would be necessary for the City to obtain an option on the property and make the expenditure out of the tax increment bond fund. The City would then sell the property to the developer. An appraisal of the property would be at the discretion of the City Council. -4- P . . COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1982 Mr. McClure stated that within 90 days he will have an answer on the direc- tion of the project. If after that period of time it does not go forward, the agreement would not be valid. Following further discussion, Alderman Beatty moved to select Miller, Miller & Mac (Jim and Dick McClure) as developer of the S & L project, using the expanded project, and to encourage a restaurant rather than a cafe. Seconded by Alderman Carls, the motion unanimously carried. The motion was amended by Alderman Beatty, seconded by Alderman Carls, to include a 90 -day agreement between the City of Hutchinson and Miller, Miller & Mac. Motion unanimously carried. -- It was moved by- Alderman Beatty to authorize an appraisal of the S &L building site. Seconded by Alderman Mlinar, -the motion carried unanimously. (d) CONSIDERATION OF RESCINDING REFERENDUM DATE OF APRIL-6, 1982-FOR LIBRARY - EXPANSION AND RENOVATION It was the recommendation of the Library Board`.to delay the referendum for the year 1982 because of the present economy. After discussion, the motion -was made by Alderman Beatty to rescind the ref- erendum date of April 6, 1982 for the Library expansion and renovation. The motion was seconded by Alderman Gruenhagen and_.carried. unanimously. (e) CONSIDERATION OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM CITIZENS BANK REGARDING BID ON OLD ARMORY Mayor DeMeyer reported the City Attorney had prepared an answer to the Bank, and he read the proposed letter. It was an oversight this matter was not acted upon sooner. Following discussion, it was moved by Alderman Beatty, seconded by Alderman Mlinar, to formally reject the bid of Citizens Bank & Trust Co. on the Old Armory in the amount of $135,000.00 and to return the deposit check. Motion unanimously carried. (f) CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS MEETING BUILDING CODE AND FIRE CODE Mayor DeMeyer stated he had requested the Fire Marshal and Building Official to review all City buildings to determine if they were in compliance with building codes and fire codes. By the next Council meeting, they should have a report ready to present. Alderman Carls inquired if the buildings would have to meet the handicap code. Building Official Pittman responded all buildings used by the public -5- COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1982 are supposed to meet the handicap code. Discussion was then given to the cost of bringing the Old Armory up to code. City Attorney Schaefer suggested closing the attics in the Old Armory to be in compliance and save money. Also, the basement could be vacated instead of installing a sprinkler system. This would mean relocating the Motor Ve- hicle office and the Hospital Auxiliary Thrift Shop. Alderman Gruenhagen stated he could not foresee spending any money on the Old Armory and recommended closing the building and moving the offices. He then commented he knew of space for rent on Main Street which would be big enough to house the Motor Vehicle office. : Alderman Mlinar inquired about items 1 and 2 in the Fire Marshal's order which had been given five days to comply with the order.- It was pointed = out that the locks-on the doors had not been corrected due to the cost in- volved. Item No. -2 would require corrective electric wiring_ throughout the- building, which would be a big expense. City Attorney Schaefer stated that if the Old Armory is closed, it is not the Fire Marshal or his office that has required the closing. This is a Council decision, and it is the law that requires meeting the code. He felt the decision to close the Armory was an administrative decision based on-_ economic factors. After discussion, Alderman Beatty moved to give the tenants 30 -day notice to vacate the Old Armory and close the building up. Seconded by Alderman Gruenhagen, the motion unanimously carried. Fire Marshal Field requested permission to have his letter printed in the newspaper. It was moved by Alderman Beatty, seconded by Alderman Mlinar, to grant permission to print a copy of the Fire Marshal's letter in The Hutchinson Leader. Motion carried unanimously. 9. NEW BUSINESS (a) CONSIDERATION OF 1982 TOURNAMENT POLICY Recreation Director Ericson reported the 1982 policy is similar to the pre- vious one; however, it will require a damage deposit for the first time. There will also be a fee for beer being sold at a tournament. Following discussion, the motion was made by Alderman Beatty to approve the 1982 tournament policy. The motion was seconded by Alderman Gruenhagen and unanimously carried. City Administrator Plotz reported that one service group was opposed to the beer charge in the new policy. • COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1982 (b) DISCUSSION OF UNAUTHORIZED USE OF TIME AND MONIES FOR REMOVAL OF SNOW ON PRIVATE PROPERTY (REQUESTED BY MAYOR DEMEYER) City Attorney Schaefer commented on the practice over the past 22 years where- by certain private lots have been cleaned of snow by the City. He stated this is not an authorized expenditure.;unless the City receives something in exchange for the use of facilities. The City should not use its equipment to clean private property. Maintenance Operations Director Neumann presented a map with 27 locations of private property that are presently being cleaned by City crew, most of which are in the downtown area. It was the understanding that the lot owners would put the snow in a corner, and the City,..crews- would - remove-it later. This expedited traffic and safety in the downtown area. However, as the City has expanded more businesses have requested to have their snow removed by the City. The City Ordinance forbids putting snow on City streets, and some lot owners have been plowing into the windrows. This year the - -City crew has spent a great deal of time removing snow. City Attorney Schaefer stated that the City must provide a designated area for private enterprise to dump snow, and the City must enforce the regula- tions regarding pushing snow out on the windrows. Following discussion, Alderman Beatty moved that the City desist from remov- ing snow from private property immediately. Seconded by Alderman Gruenhagen, the motion carried_ unanimously. Mr. Dick Lennes stated he was in support of the motion made, but he felt to implement it immediately would not give the property owners enough warn- ing. He, therefore, suggested a 30 -day period to go into effect. Alderman Beatty moved to amend the motion to grant a 30 -day grace period. The motion was seconded by Alderman Gruenhagen and unanimously carried. (c) CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTING STATE AUDITOR TO AUDIT CITY PROCEDURE AND ACCOUNTS (REQUESTED BY MAYOR DEMEYER) Mayor DeMeyer requested this item be withdrawn from the Agenda inasmuch as the Bond Counsel -had answered his questions regarding the tax increment. It was the consensus of the Council that the City Accountant and City Admin- istrator have their support in the management of City affairs. And, further, Alderman Carls moved to adopt Resolutions No. 7083 and No. 7084, Resolution of Appreciation for the services of Kenneth B. Merrill and Gary D. Plotz. The motion was seconded by Alderman Mlinar and carried unanimously. -7- COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1982 (d) CONSIDERATION OF DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER ACCOUNTS Mayor DeMeyer read a copy of the letter sent to all delinquent account hold- ers. He then inquired if there was anyone present who wished to be heard regarding his /her account. There was no response. The motion was made by Alderman Beatty to accept the staff recommendation to discontinue service at 12:00 noon on March 1, 1982, unless otherwise noted for the following accounts: 08- 0370 -1 -00, 08- 0545 -0 -00, 08- 0720 -2 -00, 09- 0355-1-00, 09- 0845 -1 -00, 10- 0569 -1 -00, 14- 0110 -2 -00, 20- 0065 -0 -00, 24 -0131- 0-00. Seconded by Alderman Mlinar, the motion unanimously carried. (e) CONSIDERATION OF -3982 TREE - REMOVAL AND STUMP REMOVAL SPECIFICATIONS- ___ .- Parks and Recreation Director Ericson-reported on the proposed- 1982 tree_;ar n d stump - removal- specifications --and explained the differences from the previous -- year. The bids would be opened on March 12, 1982 at 2:00 P.M. Following discussion, it was moved by Alderman Gruenhagen, seconded by Alder man Beatty and carried unanimously, to approve the 1982 tree and stump re- moval specifications and authorize advertising for bids to be opened on March 12, 1982 at 2:00 P.M. (f) CONSIDERATION OF SUPERVISION AND SECURITY AT SENIOR CENTER :: City Administrator Plotz reported that the City of Hutchinson has a contract with the developer to lease the Senior Center. The City is, therefore, r4�n- sponsible for maintenance of this portion of the building. Personnel Coordinator Sitz stated that a custodial worker puts in four hours a day in the Senior Center under the Green Thumb Project, which is at no cost to the City. The Senior Center caretaker would be available to provide secur- ity and supervision responsibility for $50.00 per month compensation. After discussion, the motion was made by Alderman Beatty to approve compen- sating the caretaker for supervision and security at-the Senior Center. Sec- onded by Alderman Mlinar, the motion carried, with Aldermen Carls, Mlinar, Gruenhagen and Beatty voting aye, and Mayor DeMeyer voting nay. (g) CONSIDERATION OF FEES FOR LIQUOR LICENSES Following discussion of increasing the liquor license fees, Alderman Beatty moved to change the fees as follow: am M COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1982 TYPE Off -Sale Non- Intoxicating Malt Liquor (3.2 Beer) On -Sale Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquor (3.2 Beer) Intoxicating Liquor Club Intoxicating Liquor FEE FOR YEAR $ 100.00 25.00 (Short Term) 225.00 2,500.00 fill /1 The motion was seconded by Alderman Mlinar and unanimously carried. (h) CONSIDERATION OF LEASING CONCESSION STANDS ON CITY PROPERTY WITH APPROVAL OF PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD Parks and Recreation Director Ericson stated the Parks and Recreation Board recommended leasing to private firms or individuals the concession stands on City property, with bids to be opened on March 19, 1982 at 2:00 P.M. After discussion, the motion was made by Alderman Gruenhagen, seconded by Alderman Beatty and carried unanimously, to_ approve leasing the_concession stands.and advertising for bids on March 19, 1982 at 2:00 P.M. (i)� CONSIDERATION OF MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT'AND RELEASE OF.I.IABILITY BETWEEN CITY AND MINNESOTA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD In the past there has been an exchange of services between the City of Hutch- inson and the Minnesota Army National Guard. The National Guard has requested a release of liability stating the City will not hold them or the State of Minnesota liable. Following discussion, Alderman Gruenhagen moved to approve the Mutual Aid Agreement and Release of Liability between the City of Hutchinson and the Minnesota Army National Guard. Seconded by Alderman Mlinar, the motion car- ried unanimously. (j) CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION FOR SNOW REMOVAL PERMIT BY CHARLES YERKS After discussion, it was moved by Alderman Carls, seconded by Alderman Gruen - hagen, to approve the application and issue a snow removal permit to Charles Yerks. Motion unanimously carried. (k) CONSIDERATION OF HANDICAP SIGNS Maintenance Operations Director Neumann presented a list of five locations for placement of handicap signs. It was recommended that the proposed sign -9- COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1982 on Washington Avenue East to be posted by The Barbers be moved closer to the alley. Following discussion, the motion was made by Alderman Mlinar to approve the placement of the handicap signs, including relocating the sign by The Bar- bers. The motion was seconded by Alderman Beatty and carried unanimously. (1) CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBMITTED BY HUTCHINSON AREA VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL INSTITUTE WITH FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION WITH CONTINGENCY The Hutchinson Area Vocational Technical Institute requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of a portable training - unit -to_be used in: -tom training of caring for the aged. It was the recommendation of _the _Planning_ Commission to approve the Permit, with the contingency --that the permit: re- viewed and renewed in June of 1983. After discussion, Alderman Gruenhagen moved to waive reading and adopt Reso- lution No. 7082 entitled Resolution Granting Conditional Use Permit Under Section 6.07, C.5 of Zoning Ordinance No. 464 to Allow Use of A Portable Training Unit to Be Used In Training of Caring for Aged, with the contingency that the permit be reviewed and renewed in June of 1983. The motion was seconded by Alderman Beatty and unanimously carried. (m) CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION BY PLANNING COMMISSION TO OPPOSE H.F. 1738 AND S.F. 1677 BILLS BEING CONSIDERED BY LEGISLATURE W The bill in question amends the municipal planning act to provide that a city may not prohibit manufactured homes ( "mobile homes "), which otherwise comply with city zoning ordinances, from being placed on residential lots. Following discussion, it was moved by Alderman Beatty to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and go on record as opposing H.F. 1738 and S.F. 1677 bills. The motion was seconded by Alderman Mlinar and carried unani- mously. 10. MISCELLANEOUS (a) COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITY ADMINISTRATOR (b) City Administrator Plotz reported that the City Council would be completing the budget cuts within the next few days. COMMUNICATIONS FROM PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR Parks and Recreation Director Ericson distributed copies of a report on exist- ing parks and public open space sites in Hutchinson. -10- COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1982 Permission was requested for five employees to attend a Tree Inspectors Work- shop in Eden Prairie. The motion was made by Alderman Gruenhagen, seconded by Alderman Beatty, to approve expenditures for the Workshop. Motion unanimously carried. (c) COMMUNICATIONS FROM MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS DIRECTOR Director Neumann reported he had met with the Hutchinson Safety Council and informed them that half of the street lights would be turned off along High- way No. 7 and Highway No. 15 to cut costs. There was no objection from the Council. A request was made for Ralph Neumann to attend the Governor's ConferencW on Natural Disasters on March 5, 1982 and for Doug Meier to attend the AmeXj can Public Works Conference on March 11 -12, 1982. Alderman Beatty moved to approve the request for Ralph Neumann and Doug -Meier to attend the stated conferences. Seconded by Alderman Gruenhagen, the mo- tion carried unanimously. (d) COMMUNICATIONS FROM ALDERMAN BEATTY Alderman Beatty stated that about two years ago the Planning Commission.-bad requested the City staff to prepare recommendations on agenda items.- It-was his understanding that the Mayor had requested this practice cease, and he inquired why the recommendations had been removed from the agenda. Mayor DeMeyer stated he had received complaints regarding this matter. -He personally had no objection to staff recommendations, but he felt each per- son making a recommendation should be identified. City Attorney Schaefer recommended that if the staff is unanimous in their recommendation or disapproval of an item, it should read "staff recommends approval or disapproval." However, if any staff member has reservations, it should be listed. It was the consensus of the City Council that staff recommendations should be placed on the Planning Commission agenda. 11. CLAIMS, APPROPRIATIONS AND CONTRACT PAYMENTS (a) VERIFIED CLAIMS It was moved by Alderman Gruenhagen, seconded by Alderman Mlinar and carried unanimously, to approve the verified claims and authorize payment from the appropriate funds. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:05 A.M. upon motion by Alderman Gruenhagen, seconded by Alderman Mlinar and unanimously carried. (612) 587 -5151 CITY OF I Jl U r CHINS 01V 37 WASHINGTON AVENUE WEST HUTCHINSON, MINN- 55350 M E M 0 DATE: March 2, 1982 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: George F. Field RE: Request to Attend Meetings Wednesday, March 10th The International Association of Arson Investigators, Minnesota Chapter will meet on Wednesday morning at the American Hardware Mutual Insurance Company in Minneapolis. This will be the annual meeting. We meet on a quarterly basis and members consist of insurance investigators, police investigators and fire arson investigators. As well as the annual meeting in the morning, the afternoon is designated to training in how to prepare for major catastrophies, such as fires in high rises, churches and schools and major transport incidents involving hazardous materials. Cost $10.00 (includes meal) In the evening, the Fire Marshals Association of Minnesota will meet in St. Paul. This meeting will be the annual meeting followed by a program with a representative from a national code panel specialist. Cost - $7.25 (includes meal) Membership fees are due and payable in the amount of $10.00 $5.00 - Fire Marshals Association of Minnesota $5.00 - Fire Instructors Associaton of Minnesota This is a request to attend and pay dues. Respectfully, CITY O HUTCHINSON George F. F d Fire Marshal GFF /pv (- (612) 587 -5151 / CITY OF 14UTCHIAISOJV 37 WASHINGTON AVENUE WEST HUTCHINSON, MINN. 55350 M E M O DATE: March 3, 1982 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Homer Pittman, Building Official RE: Request to Attend Meeting The Minnesota Building Officials Association, Southwest Region, is meeting on March 17th, 1982, in Olivia, Minnesota. 1982 dues in the amount of $10.00 are to be paid at that time, along with the meeting registration of-$7.00. I hereby request to attend this meeting. Sincerely, CITY OF HUTCHINSON Homer Pittman Building Official HP /pv 0 RESOLUTION NO. 7085 CITY OF HUTCHINSON RESOLUTION FOR PURCHASE 0 The Hutchinson City Council authorizes the purchase of the following: ITEM COST PURPOSE DEPT. BUDGET VENDOR Signs and Posts 1073.25 Various Parking Signs and Posts Maint. Yes Gopher Sign Co. The following items were authorized due to an emergency need: =11 Date Approved: Motion made by: Seconded by: COST PURPOSE I DEPT. IBUDGET I VENDOR Resolution submitted for Council action by: G =G 0 i (612) 587 -5151 rrr�y7 CI "Y OF PlUTCNINS0111 37 WASHINGTON AVENUE WEST - -- HUTCHINSON, MINN. 55350 M E M 0 DATE: March 4, 1982 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Building Official RE: February 1982 Building Report Attached is the February 1982 Report of Building Permits Issued and Local Public Construction. There were 2 Sign Permits issued and 13 Building Permits issued during the month for a total Construction Cost Evaluation of $26,475.00. There was 1 Plumbing Permits issued during the month. VE F Homer Pittman Building Official HP /pv attachment 711. r r I � r-� r, r i i rt 0. M.8. No_ 0F07404s• e.,. -,.. FJ RM C -404 -- _ _ r v, ); ch r p,•I Cl (' I(?. W!ll �r1 per issued Ft;R�Ap U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE F �EAi, o: THE CErJsu= PLEASE MAIL ON OR BEFORE THE 4TH DAY OF THE MONTH REPORT OF BUILDING OR ZONING (Please correct any errors In name or address) PERMITS ISSUED AND LOCAL PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION 6103500 41 9 9999 085 8 81 26 0 2730 CENSUS USE ONLY HOMER PITTMAN BLDG OFF CITY HAIL 37 WASHINGTON AVE WEST Has the geographic coverage of this permit HUTCHINSON MN 55350 sys`f�m changed during this period" x No F__J Yes — Explain in comments If no permits were issued during this Bureau of the Census MAIL THI> Please read the instructions before period, enter (X) in box and return _ j 1201 East Tenth Street COPY TO completing form. For further help, Jeffersonville, Ind, 47132 call collect (301) 763 -7244. Section I — NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE- PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY OWNED KEEPING BUILDINGS AND Item No Number Valuation of Number Valuation of MOBILE HOMES construction construction Buildings Housing Buildings Housing (a) (b) units c (Omi(dC)ents) (e) uq�ts 1) (Omit cents) One - family houses, detached 101 One- family houses attached, each unit separated from adjoining unit(s) by a wall that extends from ground to roof 102 Two - family buildings 103 Three- and four - family buildings 104 Five -or -more family buildings 105 TOTAL (Sum of 107 -705) 109 Mobile homes 112 - Section II — NEW RESIDENTIAL NON- PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY OWNED HOUSEKEEPING Item No Number Valuation of Number Valuation of BUILDINGS construction (Omit cents) construction (Omit ertts) Buildings Rooms Buildings B Rooms (a) (b) (c) (e) (f) Hotels, motels, and tourist cabins - intended for transient accommodations 213 Other nonhousekeeping shelter 214 Section III — NEW NONRESIDENTIAL PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY OWNED BUILDINGS Item Number Valuation of Number Valuation of Buildings Housing units Buildings g ousmg units construction (Omit cents) construction (Omit cents) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Amusement and recreational buildings 318 Churches and other religious buildings 319 _ Industrial buildings 320 Parking garages (open to general public) 321 Service stations and repair garages 322 Hospitals and other institutional buildings 323 Office, bank, and professional buildings 324 Public works and utilities buildings 325 Schools and other educational buildings 326 Stores and other mercantile buildings 327 Other nonresidential buildings 328 1 500 Structures other than buildings 329 Section IV — ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS C c An increase in the number of housing `A _ units (in the housing units column, a enter only the number of additional P units) 433 vY s No change in the number of N housing units 434 9 13,568 a� .2 A decrease in the number of housing v @ units (in the housing units column. V) °: enter only the number of decreased 4 A units) 43.5 Residential garages and carports (attached and detached) 436 All other buildings and structures 437 12,407 PLEASE CONTINUE ON REVERSE SIDE 01- Section V — CONVERSION3W PRIVATELY OWNEW PUBLICLY OWNED Item Number Valuation of Number ., - -- Valuation of Buildings Housing units Buiidin g s Housing units No. construction p (Omit cents) constructior (Omit cents) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Nonresidential and nonhousekeeping buildings to housekeeping buildings 540 Housekeeping buildings to nonresidential and nonhousekeeping buildings 541 Section VI — DEMOLITIONS AND RAZING OF BUILDINGS One- family buildings attached and detached 645 - Two - family buildings 646 Three- and four - family buildings 647 Five -or -more family buildings 648 All other buildings and structures - _ _ = Section VII — ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR INDIVIDUAL PERMITS OF $500,000 OR MORE Please provide in the space below, additional information for each individual permit valued at $500,000 or more entered in sections I through V. Item from Sec. Description Name and address of - Mark (X) Valuation of construction- Number of - housing Number — of I —V owner or builder one (Omit cents) units buildings (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Kind of building ----------------- - - - - -- ❑ Private --------------- - - - -- Site address ---------- -------- - - - - -- Public Kind of building ----------------- - - - - -- ❑ Private -------------------- Site address — _- - - - - -_ F-1 Public Kind of building - ----------------- - - - - -- ❑ Private --------------- - - - -- Site address --- - - - - -- E] Public Kind of building ----------------- - - - - -- ❑ Private --------------- - - - -- Site address --------- -------- - - - - -- ❑ Public Kind of building ----------------- - - - - -- ❑ Private --------------- - - - -- Site address ----- - - - - -- ❑ Public Kind of building ----------------- - - - - -- ❑ Private -------------------- Siteaddress ----------------- - - -- -- ❑Public Kind of building ----------------- - - - - -- ❑ Private Site address - - - - -- Public Kind of building ----------------- - - - - -- ❑ Private Site address ------- ---------- - - - - -- E] Public Kind of building ----------------- - - - - -- ' ❑ Private -------------- - - - - -- Site address ----------------- - - - - -- Public Comments Name of person to contact regarding this report Telephone [Area code Number Extension Homer Pittman Title Building Official 612 587 -5151 210 - 1- W. 11.0 -011 MINUTES AIRPORT COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1982 Present: Doug McGraw, Chairman John Miller Don Pankake Ed Connelly Randy Buboltz Also present: Mayor Jim DeMeyer City Administrator Gary D. Plotz Maintenance Operations Director Ralph Neumann Airport Mechanic Jim Weckman Jim Weckman, airport mechanic at the maintenance hangar, discussed problems of heating the airport maintenance hangar and the associated high fuel cost. After much discussion of various alternatives to improve the building, it was suggested that a ceiling be installed and the west hangar door be insulated along with the north window of the building. The motion was made by Randy Buboltz, seconded by John Miller, to request drawings and cost estimates to solve both the insulation and water problems of the build- ing. (It was noted that in the spring or after a heavy rain, water accumulates on the floor of the building.) Director Ralph Neumann will be responsible for respond- ing to these items. Motion unanimously carried. The Airport Commission requested City Engineer Priebe to submit layout drawings for development of the airport for future purposes. It was noted-that the City Engineer attended the last Airport Commission meeting and was going to submit these drawings. He has been requested to attend the next meeting and provide the information. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M. 7-J't-' Lr, c�a �010 MINUTES SENIOR ADVISORY BOARD FEBRUARY 10, 1982 MY of HUT MSM The meeting of the Senior Advisory Board was called to order by Chairman Haukos at 2:00 p.m. on February 10, 1982. Members present in addition to Chairman Haukos: Hazel Sitz John Longley Joan Phillips Emma Lake Lenard Schuft Jean Peterson Member absent: Roy Clabo Also present: Barb Haugen, Senior Center Coordinator The minutes of the mebtings of January 13 and January 27 were approved. Senior Center Coordinator Haugen reported on activities presently in progress and on planned future activities at the center. Every Friday afternoon will be drop -in day with bingo and other special events scheduled. Free snacks will be provided at these times by Hardees and McDonalds. An information sheet has been distributed to serve .in the interim until a bulk mailing permit is obtained. Cooperative activities -are planned with the McLeod County Historical Society. Plans have started for group tours in cooperation with travel agencies. The weekly radio program will have a variety of topics and guests. Nutrition Site Supervisor Joan Phillips reported that Nutrition participation has increased greatly since the move to the center. 135 participants were served at the Nutrition grand opening on February 9. This is maximum for.the present supply of serving trays. Coordination of the various meeting times is being worked out to alleviate congestion at peak traffic times. The Board reviewed the draft of guidelines for use of the senior center space and completed final details of the recommendation. This will be forwarded to the HRA Board for their February 17 meeting. Chairman Haukos stated that election of officers will be held at the next meeting. Next meeting is scheduled for 2:00 p.m. Wednesday, February 24. Meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Hazel Sitz, Acting Secretary 7 -c. M E M O R A N D U M DATE: march 2, 1982 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Lloyd Schlueter, Fire Chief SUBJECT: - Awarding of Bid on 3/4 -Ton Pickup The Hutchinson Fire Department recommends that you accept the lowest bid re- ceived on February 16, 1982 for a four -wheel drive pickup from Swanke Motors for a total cost of $10,680.94. / ms Fez (612) 587 -5151 CITY OF HUTCHINSON 37 WASHINGTON AVENUE WEST HUTCHINSON, MINN. 55350 M E M O DATE: March 5, 1982 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Engineering RE: 1982 Improvement Projects- In order to proceed with bonding and design for -- the -1982 Improvement-Projects, it is necessary to finalize approval of said project as soon as possible. I request you consider final review and approval of the balance of the improvement projects on Tuesday, March 9th. ( y-"t-c;4 Marlow V. Priebe Director of Engineering MVP /pv rC1(612) 587 -5151 - - - - -- - - - - - -_ OF 14UT 37 WASHINGTON AVENUE WEST HUTCHINSON, MINN. 55350 M E M 0 DATE: March 9, 1982 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Engineering RE: 1982 PROJECTS PROJECT NO. LOCATION TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT 82 -23 Hilltop Drive - Michigan St. to Pauls Rd. Grading 82 -29 Hilltop Drive - Michigan St. to Pauls Rd. Gravel Base 82 -30 California St. - Schoo. Rd. to 2,000' So. Gravel Base 82 -31 School Road - 7th Ave. N.W. to Co. Rd. 12 Gravel Base 82 -34 Linden Ave. - Lynn Rd. to Main St. Bituminous Surface 82 -35 Miller Ave. - Lynn Rd. to Main St. Bituminous Surface 82 -36 Milwaukee Ave. - Lynn Rd. to Main St. Bituminous Surface 82 -39 Franklin St. - 4th Ave. S.W. to T.H. 15 Bituminous Surface 82 -40 Monroe St. - 2nd Ave. S.E. to Fair Ave. Curb and Gutter and Bituminous Surfacing 82 -41 City /County - 2nd Ave. S.W., Dale St., Bituminous Overlay 5th Ave. N.W. & North High Drive 82 -42 Part of Sidewalk District and Part of Sidewalk Residential Area 82 -43 Monroe St. - 2nd Ave. S.E. to Fair Ave. Curb and Gutter 82 -44 Monroe St. - 2nd Ave. S.E. to Fair Ave. Curb and Gutter and Gravel Base MVP /Pv Marlow V. Priebe Director of Engineering 'r- (-?, • w (612) 567-5151 NASHINGTON AVENUE WEST --HINSON, MINN. 55350 DATE: November 30, 1981 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Engineer PROJECT NO. ASSESSABLE COST M E M O SUMMARY 1982 PROJECTS DEFERRED ASSESSABLE COST CITY COST TOTAL T2, 000 .14;OO& �-��r- ---- �,�„--- r�- s��r:- =- � - -� ._....r_�==- -= 3� -•�(3� .�..�- inn - 'ate'- '..- '�"v`w°_^ -.��.� • �'']�"]h � -� _ _ ___ - � 82 -23 -0- 11,000 -0- 11,000 t r /_/ � M E M O DATE: January 4, 1982 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Engineering RE-- Summary Report .1982 Improvement Project Bearings FOR YOUR INFORMATION' PROJECT COATiENTS -SUGGESTED PROCEDURE .._ Iian�em- AeP,ove *-A 87=03 _.._.�_._ , - t1YX11T� _ V� _ -�___ •' ��`- �h� S- �'T�T"- 4�11�157153�n �eSe�O�1*si�- -^-- -- -- - '- - aVdnCe- r � r i n 82FD5 o °5u"iSdJ3 5'd " ve3opment____:- - -- - 8va ce—P n��9BZ 6d Ub - --o - 3�.sswn - e oilmen =�- =- r-�=.. vance:: vance - rojec 3n - 87 =4 -982 • r 82=58 .4> ase_ 1.3a- rr 82�9��Phasc�33= o�- 'Sutid3:rxsiox�e�e��nent- -- - .--� -� �, -�s -- Advance- --�roject?�in�2382 r 3°v3�s Son - ve opmen --- - - a'van ce jec r r 82✓=3 -. - - - - -- - -- - ='pia fzrasiz =rev meft t - - - - dvaiice-41iject- -iir- 4w982 • 8� �ys�enF�mproveme# - Hep�ac�s�se'�� -age�n�r'prvb exa- _ar- ear- �--- -= dva�ce�r� - y 82 ` 2A_ '°"'�a�_°"�.-- '= �-- -��.�,.��,� -top £ = 3va- "nc�roject- zi'= ��3E�• 83 '� �P visz oilmen ante r-ojec -in MEMO DATE: TO: FROM: November 30, 1981 mayor and City Council City Engineer PAGE 2 SUNL•LARY 1982 PROJECTS DEFERRED PROJECT NO. ASSESSABLE COST ASSESSABLE COST CITY COST TOTAL TOTALS-------- - - - - -$ 949, 850------- - - - - -- $73,500---- - - - - -- $391,500- - - - - -- $1,414,850 Principal Payment Assessments $ 949,850't- Sewer & Water Fund 79,000 MSA Funds 80,000 Ad Valorem Tax 306,000 Total---------- - - - - -- $1,414,850 Breakdown of Ad Valorem Tax Cost Deferred Assessments $ 73,500 City Cost (intersections, credits & city property) - 149,000 Street Lighting 18,500 Sidewalk Program 65,000 Total------------------------------------------ - - - - -- $306,000 4` MVP /pv • Ma ow V. Priebe cc: Ken Merrill, Jim DeMeyer & City Engineer ^"'•' =� =Y = 3��iii3 - �-- �'pi.�.[$� -s -. -+ate .n.�+: "'sue -Z *=yg ;�e- '�°.+•�; `?..s ��..T ±_ ��..; ��`�. __ - "�,-��y�y��. ,w� .. ��i�?�+. �r.�q�.�.r+�:'� Tim e�..��LV - �,. --- .;'i�:_'�L= � -.__ :�'��- _'�. �_'�= ..�K�a►•�=i- '�-V.i V_vY 82 -29 -0- 10,000 -0- 10,000 82 -30 -0- 25,000 -0- 25,000 82 -31 -0- 27,500 -0- 27,500 82 -34 70,000 -0- 80,000 150,000 82 -35 70,000 -0- 29,000 99,000 882p. -3376 70,000 -0- - , 000 99,000 r y2�9f - 82 -39 110,000 -0- 30,000 140,000 82 -40 140,000 - - -0- 35,5.00 175,500 82 -41 167,500 -0- 32,500 2001000 82 -42 35,000 -0- 65,000 100,000 TOTALS-------- - - - - -$ 949, 850------- - - - - -- $73,500---- - - - - -- $391,500- - - - - -- $1,414,850 Principal Payment Assessments $ 949,850't- Sewer & Water Fund 79,000 MSA Funds 80,000 Ad Valorem Tax 306,000 Total---------- - - - - -- $1,414,850 Breakdown of Ad Valorem Tax Cost Deferred Assessments $ 73,500 City Cost (intersections, credits & city property) - 149,000 Street Lighting 18,500 Sidewalk Program 65,000 Total------------------------------------------ - - - - -- $306,000 4` MVP /pv • Ma ow V. Priebe cc: Ken Merrill, Jim DeMeyer & City Engineer ,4 P.ov�G� �r 82 -39 Project is part of present Capitol Improvement Program. Some adverse comments received at hearing. 82 -40 Improper Hearing Notice. Requires new hearing before further action- 82-41 Joint City /County Project, no adverse . comments. 82- 42 Project is part of a present Capitol Improvement Program. No adverse comments. Advance Project. If not a 1982 Project, re- program and notify property owners accordingly. on Jan. 4, 1982, re- hearing was-approved for Jan. 26th. Advance Project in 1982 Advance Project in 1982 C. -. -_ "_ of -23 CI__LO j; _ ^_-'Z.C_ 1LS resi1`EnLS a -Out r� "LXG:.1C. Not COSt E IeCtive 'CO C1 r�' c� i. P.15 time Reject project. e c+ 83a° '3i2 oiid3 "v'ision �i�ve3o- aeries` ^° -- avance -�roje izr-i99 .. �� 83_75 -- Phase*- = csf =�Si i�ii'siori 3eve1 "v nent��:K . _•- , = .�+ava�iee sec -- in;2!U u fro ] ect =a _ ase= 3- %of -3ub�c iv�s3on''= 'De`ve�o�en� =- _- � 3 82 -29 Project tied with 82 -23. Reject project. 82 -30 Not cost effective to City at this time. _ 'Would permit another connection from Co. Rd. 12 to T.H. 7 West. Reject project. 82 -31 Not cost effective to City at this time. Would permit another connection from Co. Rd. 12 to T.H. 7 West. Reject project. j�P�, -e�e� A9�i =� 4V'9.S1O��e �O,�IDE� = '�`"�YdTiCe�= i�ZZi3�•�� -�� ►� S��S `�� »' S�rin�-`• i�rats�. j- �w"" .�= .- ��'�:�St37aG�e�- r-0��G2.�• 82 -34 Project is part of present Capitol Improvement Advance Project. If not Program. Some adverse comments received at a 1982 Project, re-program hearing. and notify property owners accordingly. 82 -35 Project is part of present Capitol Improvement Advance Project. If not a Program_ Some adverse comments received at 1982 Project, re- program hearing. _ and notify property - owners accordingly. 82 -36 Project is part of a present Capitol Advance Project. If not a Improvement-Program. Some adverse comments 1982 Project, re- program received at hearing. and notify property owners accordingly. ,4 P.ov�G� �r 82 -39 Project is part of present Capitol Improvement Program. Some adverse comments received at hearing. 82 -40 Improper Hearing Notice. Requires new hearing before further action- 82-41 Joint City /County Project, no adverse . comments. 82- 42 Project is part of a present Capitol Improvement Program. No adverse comments. Advance Project. If not a 1982 Project, re- program and notify property owners accordingly. on Jan. 4, 1982, re- hearing was-approved for Jan. 26th. Advance Project in 1982 Advance Project in 1982 4, 19S2 Your action on Jan,��_ry 4-�h, a-nro-,-ing the ------ee p,_ah2ic heari:-:cs on ::::---c)e StreE_I' will complete the hearing ph.ase cf project review for all vro�ects consi6eration at this tiJ7,e. I would suggest that the next phase of project review, the approval OIL the 1982 improvements and ordering preparation of plans, be deferred until the next Regular Council Meeting on Janaury 26th- This will enable you to complete this- phase of review of all projects at that time. Marlow V. Priebe Director of Engineering MVP/pV !N (612) 587 -5151 CITY OF HUTCHINSON 37 WASHINGTON AVENUE WEST HUTCHINSON, MINN. 55350 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Bruce Ericson and Mark Schnobrich DATE: March 5, 1982 SUBJECT: 1982 Tree Planting Policy Attached is the tree planting policy for 1982 recommednded by the Tree Board at their February meeting. The changes in the policy from the previously _ presented are: The homeowner would pay one half the cost of the boulevard tree. The City's portion of payment for the tree - -- would not exceed $10. Upon approval of 'this policy, all subdivisions will be included. �0 (612) 587 -5151 CITY OF HUTCHINSON 37 WASHINGTON AVENUE WEST HUTCHINSON, MINN. 55350 The Tree Board unanimously approved the following concept for boulevard plantings in the planting year 1982 at their February meeting: 1. The city will purchase $2,000 worth of trees, species to be selected at a later date in the year 1982. 2. Of these $2,000 worth of trees, those that are planted on residential boulevards will be planted by the home- owners, and the homeowner will pay one half the price of the tree. 3. The city's portion of payment for the tree would not exceed $10. 4. Species selection will be determined by the Tree Board. - Any homeowner wishing to plant a tree which deviates from the selected specie list, must present his /her re- quest to the Tree Board. 5. The city will, at no charge to the homeowner, replace any tree which dies-within one year -of the-time of -- planting. 6. Upon approval of this policy, all subdivisions will be included. SWank.e Motors, Inc. 145 Washington Ave. E. Hutchinson, Minnesota 55350 587 -4999 February 23, 1982 City of Hutchinson 37 Washington Ave. W. Hutchinson, MN 55350 Attention: City Council Dear Members of the Council: ru o F 1 OCyyd ro w ,4 114462 The purpose of this letter is to request a one year renewal of our Special Use Permit for use of the City boulevard fronting Washington Avenue at the junction of Washington and Adams Street for another one - year period. Enclosed is our $5.00 filing fee for the Special Use Permit. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Imes A. Swanke President JAS:imk Enc. El to Savings, Service & Satisfaction OLDSMOBILE POWTUC I iYUTI January 25, 1982 (612) 587 -5151 '17-Y OF NUTChalINSON NASHINGTON AVENUE WEST "HINSON, MINN. 55350 Mr. James A. Swanke, President Swanke Motors, Inc. 145 Washington Avenue East Hutchinson, Minnesota 55350 Dear Mr. Swanke: The Special Permit issued to Swanke Motors, Inc. for the use of the City boule- vard expired August, 1981. If Swankes wishes to continue to use the boulevard fronting Washington Avenue at the junction of Washington and Adams Street for another one -year period, it will be necessary for a request to come to the City Council for approval. The filing fee for the Special Permit is $5.00 per year. We shall look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter. Sincerely, CITY OF HUTCHINSO Marilyn Swanson Administrative Secretary cc: Dean O'Borsky, Police Chief 0 0 W1 (612) 587 -5151 WWI CITY OF HUTCHINSON 37 WASHINGTON AVENUE WEST HUTCHINSON, MINN. 55350 February 23, 1982 Mr. Gary Plotz City Administrator City Hall Hutchinson, MN 55350 RE: Options to Purchase Dear Gary: Enclosed is a copy of a proposed Option to Pur- chase presented me by William B. Haas on behalf of Russell J. Meade. As you can see the two areas of potential con- cern are the $500.00 Purchase Price of the option and the $190,000.00 purchase price for the property. Since my understanding was that the altimate approval of the options must come from the City Council I would suggest that we present this to them at the next Thursday meeting and have them determine whether they wish to pay for an option and if the purchase price in this particular instance is acceptable to them. Sincerely yours, James H. Schaefer City Attorney JHS:ka Enclosure crneN TO PK.?icyfxex sPCSA mf Rueeell J. nerd* and A. h. m meow, hweinatter retcrred to as *MUM*, own the =al a tato awgisti" of the west 02 feet of Lot (BLOCK 7) 7*n (10) sod the Most *2 feet of the Mrth ti feet Of Lot Vim (0) iA the &nth Half of the City of NA skinsca, eta, the city of i v^ftes rerwr4ed to as `CIlY�, &sises to pursh&" as option to vaud6ow said seal ostatet gMs vMgo rmM, ,17 is A==w bat --iw Hoeft and City that is voa- sidssat,iM foe the grentinf Of ae QPUM te CitF bF Made to purdhase the ssld reel estate, asteal legal t to Mat"I Citr agrees to pap the spa of AM am m AOO ("00.00) DOR". Mes" agrees to make the ps+apfslt available to the City far , to Used lnelndiM Dsoswber 31, 1102, fer tles pumobase price of :1i0, 000.00. ' Sal+d pesdIase pries sheet l be paid in cash& or in any otber usurps =wtnally agssed by farads aced City, mteade shall "We the OPl ion to ram" a" Asa all poorest Py"Osrty true the porisss, f utusw %&Lab we Used !s lid besiaets ivalud"I b6t "Ot limited to tank rig", sled MW stba r `its attinsd to the seal estate eat bdilaing used in Mas6als buslases. qM balldiag shall rawaia with the real assata. VhLs Option ah-11 be eaossUised by written notice of the intmtiaf . of City to parahaae the psaaises at the agreed prior- and under the agreed owditions, vbicb Dative shall be delivered either peseanallY to psade, or by Cestified 1ta11 to mead• at 100 Avefts last. 0abalsissoa, w MSG. in the erect the aptim is swesuLsed before Deem ber fi, lfa2, mad if possession is W" City by Msede petist tae Deis W 1, 1 , t"" +end assesame -to shiail be pxo -mtsd betwoM Neede aM Cilp at tbs b 19 of eu - tmslM M42) , Bete* PaTiN9 1/12 te! etah -14 Le is in aeteal pooseesiae Boring the Teas 10t2, and CitY MLIN the balance. Peteessiee .ASU be given to City by "as" an the _ any of . if _,� ae soeeesmr as s�,[�aM is bh► f!r p+►tti�es. . 1 11 J. tutee" h. N. rotas. M" or HQl DT I* L 0 - (672) 58' -5151 /Utl /L- /// L� �� LF-^ �M Cf sPF r•..��iR 37 WASHINGTON AVENUE "OVEST HUTCHINSON, I✓11NN. 55350 March 4, 1982 M E M O R A N D U M TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: PERSONNEL COORDINATOR RE: MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SENIOR CENTER The Senior Advisory Board was established by City Ordinance in 1981. The- Ordinance states that the Board shall advise the - Hutchinson Housing and Redevelopment Authority an_d staff - concerning management and use of the multipurpose senior center and develop and maintain a management plan which provides opportunity for all senior - related activities to flourish. As a first step in carrying out this responsibility, the Senior Advisory Board has developed Rules for Use of the Senior Center (attached). The HRA Board accepted these Rules at their February meeting. This material is presented to the City Council for your information and approval as well. - - Hazel Sitz, City Representative to Senior Advisory Board 9'- t $0- • 1. GENERAL GUIDELINES • PULES FOR USE OF SENIOR CENTER 2 -82 a. Priority. Regularly scheduled meetings of senior groups have priority for all meeting times. There is no charge to senior groups for use of meeting space. Senior groups are defined as organizations with membership restricted to persons age 55 or older, which have been formed principally for the benefit of seniors. b. Reservations for spe,&-ial meetings of senior groups must be made -two weeks in advance to assure space. c. Non- senior groups or any - individuals may reserve space according to the fee schedule-established, subject to the priorities in (a) and (b) above. - Reservationsfor regular meetings of non- senior groups may be made on a six -month trial basis, subject to - renewal if no . scheduling conflicts arise with senior groups. - d. Approval of reservations -shall-be made by -the Senior Center Coordinator - _ or the HRA Executive Director. Fees are payable in advance, to the City of Hutchinson. 2. MEETING RULES a. Meeting space -.is for the use of adults only.__ Senior-Center-Coordinator - or HRA Executive Director may exercise some discretion in the case of special situations (i.e., short formal programs with strict supervision.) b. No use of alcoholic beverages is permitted. It is requested that _ smoking be limited as much as possible. c. Business or social activities are welcome to the extent that they are compatible with the facility and that they do not interfere with the residential use _of-the building. d. Meeting space is available from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., 7 days a week. However, available times are understood to be subject to the Nutrition schedule, the Drop -In schedule, and other scheduled senior meetings as they may from time to time occur. e. All groups must adhere to instructions for general cleanliness of space. 3. FEE SCHEDULE a. The base fee as listed applies to non - profit, charitable, or service - type organizations. b. Three times the base fee shall be charged for groups organized for profit, political groups organized for campaigning or fund raising, or for any private social activities. c. The facility will -not be used for - sectarian tnstructi-on or as a place of religious worship. d. Governmental agencies shall pay no fee. RULES FOR USE OF SENIOR CENTER Page 2 3. FEE SCHEDULE (continued) e. Base fee applies to any meeting up to 4 hours (morning, afternoon, or evening - half day). f. Double base fee applies to any meeting over 4 hours - whole day. 4. MEETING SPACES a. Conference - Crafts Room. Limit approximately 15 participants. Limited refreshments i.e., coffee, cookies.) Available 8 a.m. -10 p.m.(M -Su) Base fee $3. b. Lounge. Limit_ approximately 30 participants Limited refreshments. Available 1:30 p. m.- lO- p.m.(M- Th);6- p.m.- 10- p.m.(F); -8 a.m. -10 p.m.(S 'a-Su) Base fee $5. - = c. Lounge with Kitchenette and West Dining - Area.- -Limit approx.-.60 part- pants._ Refreshments - permitted a-s - kitchen facilities- allow Available 1:30 p.m. -10 p.m.(M -Th); b p.m. -10 p.m (F); 8 a.m. -10 p.m.— (Sa -Su) Base fee $7. (Or heavy use of kitchen, higher at discretion of Coordinator.) d. Large Multi - purpose Area without Kitchenette (east window to bi -fold doors) Limit approximately 100 participants. Limited refreshments. - Available 1:30 p.m. -10 p.m.(M -Th); 6 p.m. -10 p.m.(F);_8 a.m. -10 p.m.- (,Sa -Su). Base fee $7. e. Large Multi- purpose Area with Kitchenette (east window to west window) Limit approximately 120 participants. Refreshment as kitchen facil. allow. Available -1:30 p.m. -10 p.m.(M -Th); 6 p.m. -10 p.m.(F-); -8 a.m. -10 p.m.-- (Sa -Su). Base fee $10. (Or heavy use of kitchen, higher at discretion of Coordinator.) f. Large Multi- purpose Area with Institutional Kitchen. Subject to prior consent of City, HRA, and Nutrition program. Base fee -$25 plus hourly wage of supervisor approved -by City, HRA & Nutrition during period of use. A t . f 102 5ni.jt:h Phin ,`itj,f -3i!f HCJtch).in C) i M r, REVISED a t�� 5 T t� r,j T C 0 iyi - l_ 1-{1._JTC;si; �1S0 N 1 IRE 1 "r;TI(:)N HUTCHI.N,91)N, MINNESOTA This inspection Pound the project not to he substantially complete. The following i.temc, he-int." noted -,s ounch.liast sand etscrow: *GENERAL CONTRACTORS: ESCROW PUNC1111ST Painting Training Room — Bifold cracked. Sealer, concrete block Exterior Doors Hardware Doors 15, 11, lc, 4 Soffits & metal Kick plate door 16 Sod & Land3cane�Work Lobby — Uuarry gill cracked. Park.i.ng strips Sod Roof hatch flashing incorrect. ` Rock mulch '. Roofing misc. leaks Flashing Roof guarantee Sign letters Plaque Blind 5 X 5 West Window Muriel Allowance To be held in Escrow: $7500.00 *ELECTRICAL WORK: " ESCROW PUNCHL_IST Two (2) Exterior red lights Circuit; lahels Emer enr light stair A �l- �' 9 ; Inr.nrr�{a��t ciryc,r p.ir.irl Several ox.it light Hook up sprinkler flow switch (_ohhy, menti.nq room, stair A, mens t n i 1 e t To be held in Escrow: WP Chin:, niaintonank.r hay C; t r l k' out Training room, kitchon nn JJ r EILI51 AN] 1 Af_ CONTINUED PAC r MEC HANI.CAI WfORK ESCROW Misr_. painting of rework 2" sprinkler drain and "J-tru wal.I to apparatus Roof hood at A/C compre,-,3or Final hook, up of A/C unit.. Drip pan at anti -- syphon vaIve 311 overhead fill line hung off joist and braced. To be hPId in C'sc. row. 52500.00 j KORNGIESEL ARCHITECTS 102 MAIN STREET HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA55350 612-587-2493 X23 4 6 789, � - � O� March 4, 1982 �� NA, AR'g8` 0� BY,+ C cZZZ 1Z026��e Mayor & Members of the City Council City of Hutchinson Hutchinson, Minnesota 55350 RE: Hutchinson Fire Station Mr. Mayor & Members of the City Council: The general, mechanical and electrical contractors for the Hutchinson Fire Station are completing the items noted at the failed Substantial Completion Inspection of February 269 1982 (list attached) and have assured us the project will be substantially complete, except for the outside work, Monday, March 8, 1982. We will hold a second Substantial Completion Inspection on this date. We anticipate the building to be substantially complete and will provide the council with a Punchlist, Certificate of Substantial Completion to allow the Fire Department to take possession of the building at that time. There will also be a Final Pay Request from the general contractor submitted at that time. Sincerely, a Todd Schnobrich Korngiebel Architects TS /jp --)2,-. Korngiebel Architects FEBRUARY 26, 1982 102 South Main Street Hutchinson, Minnesota SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION HUTCHINSON FIRE STATION HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA This inspection found the project not substantially complete. The following items being noted: *rrhirpLii rnh1TPnrTnQ. General Items: Carpet Vat. Threads & Risers Base Seal Top &- Bottom wood- doors-Valance on Blinds Telephone Plates Exterior Items• Sealer, Concrete Block Paint, Metal & soffit Roof Flashing to be 8" Sod & Landscape Work. Misc. Roof Leaks Library: Roof Leak Kitchen: Drawer on bast wall to clear stove Mens Toilet Upper: Shower Rod . Stair A: Add Blind @ 5' X 5' Window Mechanical Room: Seal Floor Hutchinson Fire Station Hutchinson, Minnesota Substantial Completion Continued Page 2 *GENERAL CONTRACTOR: (Continued) Corridor: Sweep on door 1 C and 1 B. Meeting Room: Kick plate door 16 Lobby: Quarry- tile -- -cracked. Air Room: Seal Floor Aooaratus Room: Misc. Painting of pipes Clean trench drains Paint Ray —o —vac bracket Touchup over spray at over headdoors. *MECHANICAL ITEMS General Items• Ceiling the replaced. Warrenty and operation manuals. Sprinkler testing. Kitchen: Escutcheon plates Mechanical Room: Womens Toilet Down: Escutcheon plate on lay. waste Exhaust Gill Mens Toilet Up: Shower Drain Trainino Office: Sprinkler head in closet Back draft when apparatus exhaust is on. e Hutchinson Fire Station Hutchinson, Minnesota Substantial Completion Continued Page 3 *MECHANICAL ITEMS (Continued) Air Room: Sprinkler Drain to 2" line Anchor sink Aooaratus Room: Sprinkler valve leaks Complete cover of compressor lines Sheet metal escutcheon covers at openings in deck. - Thru roof thimble at stack Adjust raidiant_ heat covers to square Saddle filler line - Complete air conditioning hook up Hose Room: Exhaust damper does not. close. Tnnl Rnnm- Escutcheon plate sprinkler line Maintenance Bay: Sleeve for Washer box Roof 2" to 3" roof jacket at toilet room exhaust. *ELECTRICAL ITEMS rmnprn l T t RMS Broken Shades Several exit signs missing Exterior Items• 2 red Lights Soffit light fixtures tirm Hutchinson Fire Station Hutchinson, Minnesota Substantial Completion Continued Page 4 *ELECTRICAL ITEMS (Continued) Training Room: 1 lens Kitchen: Hood light Womens Toilet Upper: Fixture Mens Toilet Down: Lens Stair "B" Lens Exit Light - Mechanical Room: Panal covers Air Room: Flow switch refer to sheet E3 Note #6 for hook up. Maintenance Ba Y: W.P. plates r • s M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 4, 1982 TO: Mayor and City Council ------------------------------- FROM: Gary D. Plotz, City Administrator -------------------------------- SUBJECT: Monitoring Off- Street Parking Lots I have been asked to research the possibility of receiving a grant through one of the various CETA, Green Thumb or Vo -Tech. programs for the purpose of moni- toring off - street parking lots. The CETA program has a six -month position available immediately. The one appli- cant who qualifies under the program is Mr. Burton Euerle, Route 1, Hutchinson. He is the only person who applied for the position and would accept it if auth- orized by the City Council. The CETA program would be responsible for all payroll and fringe benefits. The rate of pay would be $4.00 per hour. The hours worked would be from 6 -8 hours per day. - Mr. Euerle is a former employee of Russell Meade for over 10 years as a mechanic and left the position for lack of hours. Although he has had some medical prob- lems with his hips, he believes the problem has been resolved, and he will be able to do the walking required for the monitoring position. At this time he states he has no physical or health limitations. The Police Department would supervise this employee and initiate a voluntary compliance program through the issuing of warning tickets. It will be the de- cision of the City Council as to when to adopt an Ordinance requiring any fines for over - parking. /ms cc: Dean O'Borsky mil 0 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: March 4, 1982 FROM: Gary D. Plotz, City Administrator SUBJECT: _ _Application for Industrial Revenue Bonds Miller, Miller & Mac Attached is an application for proceeding with industrial revenue bonds for the S &L project. We will need preliminary approval to proceed, as our City auditors will review their financial statements and pro -forma operating state- ment. At our next City Council meeting we would anticipate establishing a public hear- ing date for the industrial revenue bond /note of April 13, 1982. Attachment /ms q- (��' L] MILLER, MILLER & MAC, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTORS P. O. Box 248 H U T C H I N S O N , M I N N E S O T A Since 5 5 3 5 0 TeL 587 -3008 1934 March 5, 1982 City of Hutchinson Hutchinson, MN 55350 Attn: Gary Plotz- Dear Gary: Enclosed please find a completed Industrial Revenue Bond application form and a check payable to the City of Hutchinson for the $1,000 application fee. If further information is needed, please don't hesitate to call. Thank you_ Sincerely yours, - pl-� — -- McClure Vice President enclosure q- (;�- This A;;pliratior, must be submitted to Comni„ioner in duplicate STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CO %1MERCE — SECURITIES DIVISION APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND PROJECT Date Mach 5, 1982 To: - Minnesota Department of Commerce Securities Division 500 Metro Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 The governing body of Hutchinson County of McLeod Minnesota, hereby app!ies to the Commissioner of the State of- Minnesota, Securities Division of the Department of Commerce, for approval of this community's proposed - municipal Industrial Revenue - Bond Issue, as-required by Section 1, Subdivision 7, Chapter -474, Minnesota Statutes. We have entered into preliminary discussions with: FIRM . Richard L. and James =-M.- McClure ADDRESS Hiway 7 West PO BOX 248 CITY Hutchinson STATE Minnesota State of Incorporation N/A Attorney W. B. Haas Address Citizens Bank Bldg:, Hutchinson, MN Name -of Project S & L Building REdevelopment This firm is engaged primarily in (nature of business): General Construction - The funds received from the sale of the Industrial Revenue Bonds will be used to (general_ nature of project): nP�PI�^ �TTPCPTI�IV var -ant t+ +tilr3in� in a r t�il� pffic and restaurant center. It will be located in Hutchinson, Minnesota The total bond issue will be approximately $ 500,000.00 to be applied toward payment of costs now estimated as follows: Cost Item Amount Land Acquisition and Site Development S 160,000 Construction Contracts 353,000 Equipment Acquisition and Installation Architectural and Engineering Fees 22,000 Legal Fees 10 000 Interest during Construction 28,000 Initial Bond Reserve - -- Contingencies ) ( _ 18,000 Bond Discount) Other it is presently estim.3ted that co,n,,- uc;icn v:ill b o, -, or about 1 and will he con;pieted on or a,--out September 1 10 1`9fi2_ 82 1' her, co.,,pie,� d, there will be arproxinra;ely _ 5 new jobs created by the project a, an annual payroll of approximately 5.450,00® used upon currently prevailing waees. The tentative term of the financing is 20 years, commencing September 1 19 82 , The following exhibits are furnish,-:d with this application and are incorporated herein by reference: 1. An opinion of bond counsel that the proposal C. nstitutes a project under Minnesota Stat., Chapter 474.02. 2. A copy of the city council resolution giving preliminary approval for the issuance of its revenue bonds. 3. A comprehensive statement by the municipality indicating how the project satisfies the public purpose of Minnesota Stat., Chapter 474.01. 4. A letter of intent to purchase the bond issue or a letter confirming the feasibility of the project from a financial standpoint. 5. A statement, signed by the Mayor, to the effect that upon entering into the revenue ag-reerrjent, the information required by Minn. Stat. Sec. 474.01 Subd. 8 will be submitted to the Depart- ment of Economic Development. 6. A statement signed by the Mayor, that the protect does not include any property to be sg4r� or affixed to or consumed in the production of property for sale, *and does not include any housing facility to be rented or used as a permanent residence. 7. A statement signed by the Mayor that a public hearing was conducted pursuant to Minn. Stat. 474.01 Subd. 7b. The statement shall include the date, time and place of the meeting and that all interested parties were afforded an opportunity to express their views. 8. A copy of the notice of publication of the public hearing. We, the. undersigned, are duly elected representatives of Hutchinson - and solicit your approval of this ro'ect at Minnesota, p 1 your earliest convenience so that we may carry it to a final conclusion. • Signed by: (Principa! Officers) This approval shall not be deemed to bean approval by the Commissioner or the state of the feasibility of the project or the terms of the lease to be executed or the bonds to be issued therefor. Date of Approval Commissioner of securities Minnesota Department of Commerce A, 0 FIRST NATIONAL -SOO LINE CONCOURSE 507 MARQUETTE AVE March 9, 1982 Mayor and City Council City of Hutchinson EHLEJ* AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FINANCIAL SPEC'ALIS?= MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 339 -8299 (AREA CODE 612) Re: S & L Redevelopment Project /Tax Increment Financing The referenced project will generate approx. $19,880 in tax increments. annually. The'City has three options for financing the project cost. Option A is the total cost of the project financed by the sale of bonds. Option B utilizes existing tax increment to fund-capitalized interest. Option C utilizes the proceeds from a-prior sale designated for the railroad improvements.7his option also eliminates the cost of issuance and capitalized interest. Project Cost: A B . C Acquisition of land and bldg $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 Less Land sale:. 70,000 70,000 70,000 Net Project Cost 90,000 90,000 90,000 .Less-.Railroad proceeds -0- -o -. 80,000 Cost of Issuance 75000 7,000 -0- subtotal 97,000 97,000 10,000 Capitalized Interest 28;000 -0- -0- Project cost to be Financed $125,000 $,-.97,000 $ 10,000 The specific terms.of the amendment to the Tax Increment Plan will depend on the financing option utilized. The current policy of the City has been to make each project stand on its own meritsand in that case option A would be the selection.- However in times of high interest rates the Council may determine it more prudent to fund capitalized interest from funds on hand. The project will however generate sufficient funds to pay back the interest. The last option would require an advance from funds onIhand to pay the remaining cost of $10,000 plus the railroad proceeds. YOiamWi .Fahey Vice President • CERTIFICATION OF MINUTES RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 4 Issuer: City of Hutchinson, Minnesota Governing Body: City Council Kind, date, time and place of meeting: a meeting held , 1982, at o'clock .M., in the Members Present: Members Absent: Documents attached: Minutes of said meeting (pages): RESOLUTION RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 4; CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PRO- GRAM AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting recording officer of the public corporation issuing the obligations referred to in the title of this certificate, certify that the documents attached hereto, as described above, have been carefully compared with the original re- cords of said corporation in my legal custody from which they have been transcribed; that said documents are a correct and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the governing body of said corporation, and correct and complete copies of all resolutions and other actions taken and of all documents approved by the governing body at said meeting, so far as they relate to said obligations; and that said meeting was duly held by the governing body at the time and place and was attended throughout by the members indicated above, pursuant to call and notice of such meeting given as required by law. WITNESS my hand officially as such recording officer this day of 1982. Signature Name and Title ' • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 4; CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PRO-- GRAM AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hutchinson (the City) as follows: 1. Recitals. This Council by resolution adopted October 14, 1980, designated a development district pursuant T to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 472A and a tax increment financing district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71 through 273.78. Both the development district and the tax increment financing district have been designated Develoument District No. 4 (the District). This Council has previously adopted a development district program (the Program) and a tax increment financing plan (the Plan) for the District. 2. Proposed Project. The City has requested and received proposals for the renovation and rehabilitation of the S & L Building (the Project) located on the southeast corner of Main Street and First Avenue S.E. which is proposed to be purchased by the City and sold by the City to a party to be determined. This Council has been advised that in order to undertake the Project and to finance the City's share of the cost of the Project with tax increments derived from the District it is necessary to amend the Program and the Plan and that prior to the amendment of the Program and the Plan it is necessary to hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments. 3. Public Hearing. A public hearing on the pro- posal to amend. the Program and the Plan to provide that the City may undertake the Project and finance its share of the cost of the Project through the use of tax increments. to be derived from the District is hereby called and shall be h eld on , 1982, at o'clock .M. at the City Hall and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the public hearing to be published once not less than 10 nor more than 30 days prior to the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. The notice of the public hearing shall be in substan- tially the following form: • • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Hutchinson City Council will meet on , 1982, at o'clock _.M., at the City Hall in Hutchinson, Minnesota to hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the development district program and tax increment financing plan previously established by the City for a development district and tax increment financing district, both designated as Development District No. 4 (the "District "). The proposed amendments provide for the undertaking by the City and the financing through the use of tax increments to be derived from the District of the City's share of the cost of the purchase, renovation and rehabilitation of the S & L Building located on the southeast corner of Main Street and First Avenue S.E. which is proposed to be purchased by the City and sold by the City to a party to be determined which party will renovate and rehabilitate the S & L Building. All persons wishing to be heard on the proposed amendments to the development district program and tax increment financing plan for the District are requested to appear at the public hearing. Date: , 1982. Attest: City Clerk BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL -2- /s/ Gary Plot2 City Clerk Mayor The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. M, n"��2345.�j�� 9 rO �p� l CITIZENS BANK .i H lJ S 1 CO. February 18, 1982 City Council City of Hutchinson 37 Washington Avenue W. Hutchinson, Mn., 55350 Gentlemen: Since the inception of the 2 -hour Parking Program and elimination of the meter heads, we are experiencing a problem on the north side of our bank, which would be on First Avenue S.W. We are having a problem of access to our After Hour Deposit and Letter Drop and, also, an added inconvenience to our customers entering the bank for their personal banking needs on a short term basis. Prior to the change in the approach to downtown parking, we did have four 15- minutes meter heads at our north entrance and, as a result of a change in the parking situation, these have been removed. Consequently, the space that was used for short term parking has been eliminated to the detriment of many of our customers. Due to the shortage of parking in the immediate area of the bank, this has caused substantial time loss to our customers and has been detrimental to our banking operations and a consequent lack of-timely access to the bank as a financial stop for those that are desirous of using our services. We are, therefore, requesting that a minimum of Six (6) parking spaces limited to 15- minute parking be established so that we can better serve our customers and to re- instate reasonable parking access for the people visiting our bank and the immediate business area. We respectfully request that the Council consider our needs and amend the Parking Ordinance, if necessary, to accomodate the situation as described above. I expect that other businesses may have similar problems. From our point of view, it appears obvious that we need the assistance and cooperation of the Council so that the people visiting our bank and down- town Hutchinson are accomodated to the extent that they are on a limited basis better served than they currently are with the absolute 2 -hour parking concept which Permit employee and long term parking which, we view as being detrimental to our operation and possibly to the ultimate detriment of the downtown business climate. Your serious consideration to our request would be very much appreciated. Sincerely yours, Irvin Burich President ' 102 M/VV/& SOUTH • HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA 55350 • PHONE: 587 -2233 � m s • M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 4, 1982 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: - _Gary D. Plotz_,_ City Administrator _ , SUBJECT: Relocation of Recreation Offices and Motor Vehicle Department The decision of the City Council was to vacate the Old Armory within 30 days. This deadline would be March 24, 1982. Bruce Ericson, Eileen Torrey, and my- self have been looking at the following buildings with consultation of the Building Official: LOCATION Yetzer's Building (North Main) Old Utilities Bldg. (Jefferson Street) Old Utilities Bldg. (Hwy. 7 East) Old Fire Station (Washington Ave.) MINIMUM AREA WILLING TO RENT 2,000 -2,200 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft. MONTHLY RENT COMMENTS $675.00 Excludes heat and @$3.75 sq. electricity. Men and ft. est.; women's bathrooms must depending be installed on first on changes floor. $650.00 Just rented out, after @$4.35 sq. our inspection. ft. School District has not decided what to do with the build- ing, according to Donn Hoffman. May know more information by Tuesday evening. -0- Only has one bathroom and one entrance /exit door; some remodeling required. Will vacate March 12, 19 82 . If.yo urchoice is to vacate by March 24, the least costly alternative is to move the Recreation Department into the two offices on the second floor of City Hall and have the two secretaries on the south side of the Auditorium,separated by port- able dividers. In regard to Motor Vehicle, Eileen has reviewed all of the above buildings and felt that the former recruiting office would be the best alternative in view of_ the time frame. If this alternative is chosen, possibly you may want to consider a month -to -month lease rather than a long -term commitment. This would allow the City to continue to look for alternative space at other locations. It is noted that the Building Official says the handicap code requires both a men's and women's bathroom if there are more than four employees. If we combine the Motor Vehicle office in the Recreation office, the number of employees will require us to have the owner of the building install separate bathrooms on second floor. If there are three or less employees, such as Motor Vehicle, one bathroom is sufficient at first or lower level unless a handicapped person is employed. /ms • 0 MINIMUM AREA WILLING MONTHLY LOCATION TO RENT RENT COMMENTS Upstairs of Note: Possibly for -0- Two offices available, City Hall Recreation Office machine room and old transit office; secre- taries could have pos- sible portable dividers ,adjacent to offices in Auditorium; estimated cost $1,000, plus elec- trical drop -plug units or other. Former Recruiting Office (Hutch 450 sq. ft. Note: Possibly $325.00/Mo. Ground floor access, finished finished office space, Hotel) for Motor Vehicle 3 heat included. Department Inasmuch as we need time to move, the Council . 4. would need to make a decision with- -- - - in the next few-days-0r extend the closing date of the Old Armory.-.---=- If.yo urchoice is to vacate by March 24, the least costly alternative is to move the Recreation Department into the two offices on the second floor of City Hall and have the two secretaries on the south side of the Auditorium,separated by port- able dividers. In regard to Motor Vehicle, Eileen has reviewed all of the above buildings and felt that the former recruiting office would be the best alternative in view of_ the time frame. If this alternative is chosen, possibly you may want to consider a month -to -month lease rather than a long -term commitment. This would allow the City to continue to look for alternative space at other locations. It is noted that the Building Official says the handicap code requires both a men's and women's bathroom if there are more than four employees. If we combine the Motor Vehicle office in the Recreation office, the number of employees will require us to have the owner of the building install separate bathrooms on second floor. If there are three or less employees, such as Motor Vehicle, one bathroom is sufficient at first or lower level unless a handicapped person is employed. /ms • 0 A.O. (Tony) Victorian (County Assessor) March 3, 1982 0 Office of MCLEOD COUNTY ASSESSOR Court House Glencoe, Minnesota 55336 Telephone • 864 -5551 ,\23456 8 D ti MAR 7982 - 00 IZ�CEIVEp `'' LO BY. �'22z tZt)26 . Clerk of-City or Township: Enclosed is the notice of time set for the meeting of your Local Board of Review and also the necessary-assessment notice-blanks which must be posted and published at least 10 days prior to the date of the meeting. If this meeting date and time set..for your jurisdiction conflicts in some .tray, please let this office know at once so that a new date may be set. This is important because all "Notice of Assessment and Equalization" forms that are mailed to the taxpayers will include the meeting date and time on them. A review date change cannot be made after the notices are sent out. Your cooperation in this matter will be appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, CIO A. 0. Victorian County Assessor AOV /ar Enc: McLeod County Equal Opportunity Employer Form No. A.F. 4 —Notice to Cle OFFICE OF COUNTY- ASSESSOR !�1 BLANK P TO THE CLERK OF THE City OF Hutchinson MCLEOD COUNTY, MINNESOTA: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, That the_ 21st day of May, 19$2 at 10 o'clock • M., has been fixed as the date for the meeting of the Board of Review— *Egl6:ff (Strike out one) 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 274.1, you are required to give notice of said meeting by publication and posting, not later than ten days prior to the date of said meeting. Given under my hand this 4th day of March 1982 County Assessor 04 McLeod County, Minnesota *Applies only to cities whose charter provides for a Board of Equalization instead of a Board of Review. r 0 hutchinson community hospital Century Avenue, Hutchinson, Minnesota 55350 Telephone 612/587 -2148 "An Equal Opportunity Employer" March 5, 1982 Honorable James DeMeyer and City Council Members 37 Washington Avenue West Hutchinson, Minnesota 55350 Honorable Mayor DeMeyer: The Hutchinson Community Hospital Auxiliary is aggressively trying to seek an alternative location for the operation of the Thrift Shop, presently located in the Old Armory. Currently, we are pursuing alternative spaces to rent to re- locate this enterprise but at present have made no definite committment. Please consider this letter as a request for an extension to occupy and conduct business in the present location of the Old Armory for an additional thirty (30) days. If this is not possible, we would request, as an alternative, a thirty (30) day extension for storage of our present Thrift Shop inventory. Thank you, in advance, for your consideration of the above- - mentioned matter, If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, HUTCHINSON CO HOSPITAL Philip Graves Administ ator PGG:lkz 0 12) 587 -5151 rcH, / CITY OF HUTCHINSON 37 WASHINGTON AVENUE WEST HUTCHINSON, MINN. 55350 March 9, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: PERSONNEL COORDINATOR SZt� RE: MEETING We have received notice of a meeting jointly sponsored by the - League of Cities and the Coalition of Outstate Cities to review a proposed Labor Relations Coordination Service and some labor relations materials which have been compiled for the Coalition. The materials relate to outstate police wage and fringe benefit data._ The meeting would be of interest to Police Chief Dean O'Borsky and Personnel Coordinator Hazel Sitz. There is no cost involved other than noon meal and mileage. Agenda attached. Request authorization for 1 or 2 persons to attend this meeting on March 18, depending on time available. /o -�'k • H COALITION OF OUTSTATE CITIES Meeting Notice Date March 18, 1982 Time: 10 :00 A.M. coffee and rolls 10:30 A.M. meeting Place: Capp Tower Motor Hotel (Walnut Room) 77 East 9th Street St. Paul, Mn. 55101 Luncheon Costs: $8.00 per person Agenda 10:30 A.M. :Call to order and approval of minutes. 10:35 A.M. Don Foth, Labor Relations Association, speaking on wage / benefit comparisions between cities. 11:15 A.M. Peggy Flicker, League of Mn. Cities, giving an overview of 1982 legislative session as it pertains to municipalities. 11:50 A.M. Luncheon 1:30 P.M. Reconvene _ 1:30 P.M. Guest speaker, Joan Growe, Secretary of State, speaking on election law changes and some highlights of this session of the Legislature. 2:15 P.M. Open discussion. 2:30 P.M. Adjourn. *IMPORTANT — RSVP TODAY Call or write me no later than March 15, 1982 regarding the number of persons you will have attending. It should'be a pertinent meeting. Please plan to attend. Robert M. Grasslin Administrative Aide City Hall St. Cloud, Mn. 56301 612 - 251 -5541, ext. 103 Ift • REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING WATER & SEWER FUND March 9, 1982 McLeod Co. Sanitary Landfill dumping charges $ 9.00 No. Central Sec. AWWA registration fees 45.00 Am. Payment Centers Inc. 3 mos. box rental 42.00 Ag Systems Inc. supplies 1.04 Brandon Tire Co. tire repairs 30.29 Commissioner of Revenue Feb. sales taxes 197.59 Crow River Press Inc. envelopes 247.05 Farm & Home supplies 55.67 Feed Rite Controls Inc. chemicals 148.52 Floor Care Supply Co. chemicals 29.50 Gambles supplies 4.49 Gross Ind. uniform rental 69.00 Hutchinson Utilities electric,gas,computer chgs. 10,362.43 Heikes Hardware supplies 40.73 Hutch Wholesale supplies 1.35 Ind. School Dist. 423 gasoline 516.42 Junker Sanitation Feb. refuse hauling 17,085.60 Mn. Valley Testing Lab. water & sewer testing 415.20 Nalco Chemical Co. chemicals 6919.20 Worthington Service repairs 475.00 Hutchinson Telephone telephone 196.31 Minnesota Mutual March life ins. 44.84 Crown Life Ins. Co March Med. Inc. 114.00 Equitable Life Ass. Soc. March LTD 54.42 St. Treasurer -PERA employer contribution 339.72 GENERAL FUND 37,028.77 *Mn. State Treasurer snowmobile reg. fees $ 375.50 *ICMA Retirement Corp. employer contribution 146.00 *Tree Inspector Workshop registration fees 50.00 Coalition of OUtstate Cities 1982 dues 25.00 Crowley Fence Co. fencing $ brackets 996.60 Flaherty Equipment Corporation generator repairs 208.01 Mid Central Fire Inc. gloves 78.00 Mn. Bldg. Officials Assn. 1982 dues 10.00 Truck Outfitters supplies 163.71 Western Union western union 5.65 Commissioner of Transportation traffic counting 828.00 Roger Denton referee 80.00 Buell Fogg referee 96.00 Mike Fogg referee 30.00 Rod Gulbransen referee 30.00 Paul Linder referee 80.00 Mark Mortensen referee 30.00 Barb Haugen skating instructor 168.00 KRIS Pellinen skating assistant 56.00 Sue Reid skating assistant 56.00 Judy Thunstrom skating instructor 72.00 Allen Office Products supplies & equipment 190.66 American Linen Supply laundry service 35.68 Am. Welding Supplies chemicals 49.02 Big Bear supplies 30.83 Brandon Tire parts 85.29 Crow Chemical chemicals 29.40 Copy Systems Inc. repairs 274.09 / -- 9 0 -2- Cash Drawer #4 cash for supplies 47.07 Central Mn. Comm. 2 portable radios 1116.00 Crow River Vet Clinic boarding fees 9.00 Coast to Coast supplies 41.19 Coca Cola Bottling Co. arena supplies 347.25 Copy Equipment Inc. supplies 185.36 Culligan Water Cond. salt and service 23.20 Crow River Press Inc. stock paper 18.22 Crow River Glass Co. repairs & supplies 215.20 E -Z Sharp Inc. parts 114.72 Electric Motor Co. motor repairs 23.20 Family Rexall Drug supplies 31.60 Farm & Home supplies 463.77 Floor Care Supply vaccuum cleaner 217.50 Fire Extinguisher Sales extinguisher servicing 23.40 GTC supplies 592.37 Gambles supplies 58.25 Pamida supplies 8.54 Gopher Sign Co. signs 651.65 Govt Training Service registration fees 90.00 Gross Ind. uniform rental 340.66 HAVTI work study students 686.60 Henrys Candy Co. arena supplies 1258.95 Hutchinson Leader publication hearing costs 289.93 Hutchinson Utilities electric $ gas 16,200.06 Hutchinson Wholesale supplies 387.59 Heikes Hdware supplies 57.51 Ind. School Dist. 423 gasoline 4619.54 Ink Spots Inc. printing $ supplies 86.90 Jerabek Machine Shop welding repairs 29.25 Johnson Motor Co. parts 4.86 James De Meyer Mayors office for March 300.00 LaHass Mfg. & Sales parts 67.70 League of Mn. Cities 7 directories 70.00 Lloyd Schlueter intown mileage 30.00 Marco Bus. Products repair of equipment. 72.24 McLeod Co. Power Assn. electricity 739.35 Mn. Good Roads Inc. 1982 subscription 70.00 Kenneth B. Merrill meeting mileage 67.41 Miller,Miller $ Mac Inc. concession stand 169.29 Midwest Carbon Co. supplies 75.85 Montgomery Wards supplies 110.58 Plaza OK Hardware supplies 56.34 Gary Plotz MARCH INTOWN MILEAGE 150.00 Plowmans Inc. parts 27.03 The Patco Co. parts 111.00 Quades Inc. parts 5.01 Schlueters Refrigeration repairs 65.90 Schmeling Oil Co. fueld oil, oil & grease 2215.54 Sorensen Farm Supply supplies 91.62 State Treasurer Soc. Sec. 5771.37 Swanke Motors repairs 133.27 James Schaefer meeting mileage $ fees 868.24 Texgas Corp. chemicals 411.55 Tri County Water Cond. chemicals 30.50 Tombstone Pizza Corp. arena supplies 118.80 Velvet Coach Inc. meeting 16.72 0 -3- Xerox Corporation West Central Ind. Wigen Chevrolet Wesleys Pharmacy County Treasurer St. Treasurer -PERA Minneosta Mutual Crown Life Ins. Co Equitable Life Ass. Soc. Hutchinson Telephone BONDS OF 1978 Patrick Whalen 1980 TAX INCREMENT BONDS Kraus Anderson 1981 FIRE HALL CONSTRUCTION BONDS Zee Medical Services Allen Office Products Hutch Plbg. $ Htg. MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE 0 supplies $ contract payt. $ 473.26 supplies 205.02 repairs & parts 36.95 films & processing 9.02 dl fees for county 77.00 employer contribution 3660.22 March Life Ins. 468.16 March Med Ins. 1352.62 March LTD 542.52 telephone 2472.28 1418.08 53,670.14 assessment refund senior citizens.center kitchen first aid cabinet office equipment. duct work 400.56 17,825.00 249.95 8510.00 198.66 $8958.61 Commissioner of Revenue Jan. sales taxes 3779.79 Griggs, Cooper & Co. wine $ liquor 2563.99 Old Peoria Co. wine & liquor 2101.93 Ed Phillips 4 Sons wine 4 liquor 1418.08 Ed Phillips & Sons wine 4 liquor 2088.06 Griggs Cooper & Co. wine $ liquor 1907.78 Twin City Wine Co. wine & liquor 2933.65 Old Peoria Co. wine & liquor. 1927.42 $18720.70 (612) 587 -5151 CITY OF HUTCHINS ®N 37 WASHINGTON AVENUE WEST HUTCHINSON, MINN. 55350 March 9, 1982 FOR Y0!.'7 INFORMATION TO: Mayor DeMeyer and members of the City Council After reviewing the Letter to the Editor published in the Hutchinson Leader on March 4, 1982, I feel it is appropriate to outline my views concerning the duties and responsibilities of the City Attorney and to clarify the history and status of proposed Ordinance 28 -81. Section 2.05 of the Hutchinson -City Charter provides that the City Attorney is one of the appointive officers of the City. The City Attorney may be appointed or removed only-through a majority vote.of the Council. -The City Attorney,--therefore, serves the Council as a whole and not a Councilman or group of Councilmen, and should accordingly scrupulously attempt to -- refrain from interjecting his own personal opinions on the Council. The Councilmen, as the elective officers of the citi- zens, have the duty and responsibility to determine the advis -. ability of -any particular course of action .__-Unless a Council's actions are clearly contrary to statute, ordinance or charter, it is the City Attorney's duty to advise the Council of the potential legal consequences of any decision and then to im- plement the decisions of the Council in a prompt and efficient manner. With the duties of the City Attorney thus defined, a closer examination of the drafting of Ordinance .28 -81 is warranted. In December of 1981 the City Council, after public hearings and deliberation, determined to effect a plan calling for the demolition of the Old Armory, its conversion to public parking, and the..construction of an activities center to replace the facilities lost through the conversion of'the Old Armory. This proposal could be divided into several parts. First, the City of Hutchinson would remove the Old Armory and replace it with public parking. Such action is specifically authorized by Min- nesota Statutes 459.14, Subd. 1, which states that a City "may devote any property already owned by the municipality and de- voted to other purposes to be used as parking area and may construct or otherwise provide, equip, maintain and operate parking facilities and may expend municipal funds for these purposes." In my opinion it seems clear that the City under -2- the provisions of this State statute could have legally con- verted the Old Armory to public parking. The second part of the proposal called for the transfer of $200;000.00 from the City Parking Fund to the General Fund.. Both the City's finan- cial consultant, Mr. Bill Fahey of Ehlers &Associates, and the City's bond consel, Mr. Jerry Mahoney of-the Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford, Whitney & Halladay Law Firm, were of the opinion that such a transfer was proper from both an accounting and legal standpoint. Third, the City was to designate certain revenue sharing funds for use in construction of a replacement structure. Lastly, the proposal called for a donation of $200,000.00 from the Citizens Bank & Trust Co. to the City of Hutchinson for use in the construction of a building to replace the Old Armory. This donation was contingent upon the City agreeing that it would not convert the property to any use other than public parking without the Citizens Bank first consenting to such conversion and the City granting to the Citizens Bank the right to construct a building over -the property; providing, however;_.-that any-such structure would not hamper. -the properties'. -- use for ground level parking.--Since the City could sell all its-- ..,... rights, title and interest in the property to a private party, I was of the opinion that -th e- City could _ grant-to---the Citizens- Bank a portion of those rights as a condition imposed upon its receiving the $200,000.00 donation. In a letter to the Council dated December 7, 1981, I stated: "I am making no .comments con - cerning the tax consequences of such a transaction for the donor (Citizens Bank). It may well be that for tax purposes the donor (Citi-zens Bank) may have to deduct--the-value. . . receivEd by the donor (Citizens Bank) from the total value of-the donation. The City Council then directed the City Attorney's office to draft an ordinance which x=ould encompass the various aspects of the proposal as it was then before the Council. Ordinance 28 -81 was drafted in respose to that direction. It was reviewed by the then City Attorney, M. D.-Schantzen, and presented to the City Council for their inspection and consideration. It was passed by the Council with a 5 -0 vote. Prior to the ordinance taking- effect,.a group of citizens circulated a petition asking that the ordinance be put to a vote at a special referendum. Since the Supreme Court,of the State of Minnesota has held that not every type of ordinance passed by the City is subject .to referendum, it was necessary to determine whether the ordinance was "legislative" (laying down some general, permanent and uni- form rule of law) or "administrative" (one that calls for in- vestigation and the exercise of discretion and business judgment). If the ordinance was legislative, it was subject to referendum; if it was administrative, it was not. In an attempt to obtain a clarification of this issue, I was directed to seek an opinion from the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota. My conclud- ing question to the Attorney General was: "Is the ordinance as enacted by the City Council of the City of Hutchinson in whole • 0 -3- or in part a legislative act subject to initiative and referen- dum under the guidelines imposed by the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. . This opinion was sought .in order to clarify the legal status of the requested referendum and not as a means to somehow subvert the will of the citizens. After the Attorney General's opinion was requested, several citizens indicated that they felt giving the Citizens Bank the ability to construct a building over the proposed parking lot was a "franchise ". Section 10.01 of the City Charter provides: no person, firm or corporation shall place or maintain any permanent or semi- permanent fixtures in, over, upon, or under any street or public place for the purpose of operating a public utility or for any other purpose, without a franchise therefor from the City." It-also provides that a franchise for a term exceeding 20 years shall be put to a vote of the electors. The franchising provisions of the City Charter in the past have always -dealt -with the use of city streets and thoroughfares by private corporations. Between 1930 and 195.0 only seven fran- chises-were granted, of which -five dealt with railroad tracks crossing or utilizing city streets and two dealt with coal - loading docks._ Since_1950 the only franchise granted was the cable television franchise granted in 1974. It appears as if none of the eight franchises were ever put to a public vote. It :does appear that several privately owned semi - permanent structures have been erected on City property, without the benefit of a franchise, the most notable being the popcorn stand that has stood on the corner of Library Square for over 40 years. No council has demanded a franchise for this or simi- lar structures. Nevertheless, it the rights given to the Citi- zens Bank were to be considered -a "franchise ", it would not necessarily make Ordinance 28 -81 illegal or "null and void ". If Ordinance 28 -81 were amended -in a manner designating the rights granted to Citizens Bank a "franchise" and limiting the duration of the franchise to 20 years, the intent of 28 -81 could be achieved within the guidelines of Section 10 of the City Charter. This question became moot when the Citizens Bank of- fered to remove any conditions it had placed upon its donation to the City. Citizens Bank would have had no right to control the use of the site or to place a structure over it. At the present time even this offer has been withdrawn. In the future, as in the past, I will continue to attempt to implement the policies of the City Council in a manner consistent with both City Charter and State Statute. Respectfully submitted, James H. Schaefer Hutchinson City Attorney JHS:11 r � • (612) 587 -5151 CITY OF HUTCHINSON 37 WASHINGTON AVENUE WEST HUTCHINSON, MINN. 55350 March 9, 1982 POR YOUR INFORMATION TO: Members of the Hutchinson City Council RE: Abortion Issue Dear Councilmen: It has come to my attention that.several residents - of the community may petition the council to enact some sort of resolution or- referendum that would limit --- restrict,--- or- --- - prohibit =the termination of pregancies by- physicians licensed - to practice at the Hutchinson Community Hospital. After discussing this matter with Phil Graves, Admin- istrator for the Hutchinson Community Hospital, it is my belief that the Hutchinson Community Hospital is operating within the guidelines set by the Supreme Court of the United States and the State of Minnesota-. --The Hutchinson Community Hospital makes its surgical facilities available to all licensed physicians who are authorized to practice at the hospital. The use of such facilities to terminate pregancies during the first trimester of.pregancy is -a decision made by the physician and his patient. As such the responsibility for the decision to terminate pregancy does not lie with the Community Hospital but with the medical and moral judgment of the physician and the patient themselves. I am enclosing a copy of a Courts of Appeals decision _,for the Eighth Circuit decided in_1974. This decision involves the City of Virginia, Minnesota and I feel that it is dispositive of the issue that may be presented to the council. It held "That the hospital facilities must be made available for abor- tion services, as they are for other medical procedures, to those physicians and their patients who have a right to and request such facilities." In so holding the court overruled a hospital resolution that prohibited the use of hospital facilities for the performance of any abortion not necessary to preserve the life of the mother. This case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court which refused to review the decision. In 1982 the City of Virginia again sought to have the matter reheard contending that the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding abortion funding restric- tions had altered the state of the law. The Eighth Circuit -1- • • y Members of the Hutchinson City Council March 9, 1982 Page 2 again refused to uphold the Virginia ban stating "There is a fundamental difference between providing direct funding to affect the abortion decision and allowing staff physicians to perform abortion at an existing publicly owned hospital." I am providing copies of the Nyberg vs. City of Virginia decision and a summary of the recent appeal to the Eighth Circuit. The above information has been provided so that you as individual councilmen may be prepared to respond to questions by concerned citizens -who may seek-a statement--of- your formal position on this matter. I feel -that -the proper response -may. be to inform_ the public -that the abortion -- issue has been pre - empted by state and federal authorities and that any action =to restrict abortions taken -at- the local level has been ruled an unconstitutional infringement_ on the patients fundamental right of personal liberty embraced within the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby protected from undue infringement by the State. As such, a city councilman is powerless to take any action which would abridge the patient's freedom to terminate pregnancy. - --- -Since - -you as councilmen are sworn to uphold the Constitution as it -is interpretted by the Courts of the Land you must take this stand regardless of your own personal beliefs in this matter. It should be stressed that I feel that the above position is correct legally. Nothing prevents you as councilmen from expressly your position on the moral issues of abortion or from petitioning Congress or the State Leg- islature concerning your beliefs on this issue. If you have any questions_ concerning this matter please feel free to contact me directly. Sincerely yours, James H. Schaefer City Attorney JHS:ka MARYLAND BLUE SHIELD PLAN FREEZE HALTED BY COURT PENDING LITIGATION A restraining order has been issued against Maryland's insurance commissioner, thereby prohibiting him from freezing Blue Shield reimbursements to physicians at 1981 levels. A Baltimore city court judge issued the re- straining order in response to lawsuits filed by Marvland Blue Shield, the District of Columbia's Blue Shield plan, and a Baltimore cardiologist. The plaintiffs charged that Insurance Commissioner Edward Birrane Jr. had acted unconstitutionally and overstepped his legal authority in ordering the freeze, which was to be imposed until July 1982. In ordering the freeze on Jan. 4, Birrane also imposed restrictions on the Maryland plan that would change the formulas Blue Shield uses to calculate physicians' payments. Specifically, he ordered that fees of new physicians during their first three years of practice in Maryland be excluded in the formula that determines the Blue Shield ceiling. ■ IOWA HSA PLANS REORGANIZATION TO ACHIEVE BROADER REPRESENTATION The board of the Iowa Health Systems Agency (HSA), which has been responsible for health planning in the state since 1975, has approved a reorganization plan designed to bring broader representation to the state's health planning agency. The restructured group would be called Health Policy Corp. of Iowa, and would have increased representation from the busi- ness, labor, and private sectors, according to Frank Severino, associate director of the HSA. "Traditionally, business and consumers have not been committed or active in health planning, but that's changing," he said, adding that the HSA plans to be responsive to this change. If the agency's board represents its constituency more fully, it most likely will have a greater impact on health policy decisions, he said. The reorganization plan is not in response to federal funding cutbacks, Severino said, al- though he acknowledged that the HSA is not immune from the economic crunch. Health Policy Corp. would continue to seek federal and county funds, he said. For the first time, following a change in federal law, it would seek funds from insurance companies. Severino emphasized that the reorganization plan, despite the board's approval, is in the proposal stage without firm commitments from prospective board members. But assuming there are no complications, the restructuring is expected to begin in May, he said. ■ APPEALS COURT RULES ABORTION BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN MINNESOTA CITY The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled that a ban on abortions in a Minnesota city's sole hospital --a municipal hospital —is unconstitutional. In'Nyberg v. City of Virginia, the appeals court said that recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding abortion funding restrictions were not relevant to the Minnesota city's appeal. "There is a fundamental difference between providing di- rect funding to effect the abortion decision and allowing staff physicians to perform abor- tions at an existing publicly owned hospital," the court said. The appeal stemmed from an attempt in 1973 by Virginia's Hospital Commission to prohibit .use of the city's hospital facilities for all abortions except those "required to save the life of the mother." The circuit court found the commission's resolution unconstitutional and issued an injunction, thereby preventing enforcement of the ban. In 1980, the city moved to have the injunction lifted, on the grounds that the recent Supreme Court de- cisions made the injunction inappropriate. In its decision, the appeals court said that should the issue now become whether the city would incur any expenses from performing abortions at its hospital, the matter should be returned to the district court. (Nyberg v. City of Virginia, USCA, 8th Circuit, 50LW 2440, Jan. 11, 1982) ■ 7 fl Second Serjej Volume 495 F.2d Cam,, Ay,,j and �.fe�acin�d UNITED STATES COURTS OF "PEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS A" TEMPORARY EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS ST. FAV36, MINN. WEST PUBLISHING 00. 1974 ,Vinnesofa State Library, Bf, Pau4 Minn. -x 1342 495 FEDERAL REPORTER. 2d SERIES rule as to group invitation? may appear on its face, one inquiry the court below must make is whether it was adopted to keep certain black children out, who theretofore were eligible to be guests of members, or whether the group rule had some other real basis in fact. If the former be the case, then these "unidenti- fied, but identifiable" black children, Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. at 254, 73 S.Ct. 1031, 97 L -Ed. 1586, could be found to have been personally discriminated against. A principal question for reso- lution is thus whether the supposedly neutral rule was nothing more in reality than a smokescreen to cover the actual intent and effect or whether it was fac- tually grounded in non - racial motiva- tions and operative non - discriminatorily. Summary judgment for defendant va- cated and cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. M p s KEY •V"Ut SYSTEM T George W. NYEERG et al., plaintiffs-Appellees, V. - The CITY OF VIRGINIA et al., Def endants•AppelianbL No. 73 -1688. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 12, 1973• Decided Feb. 19, 1974. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 3, 1974. mission and administrator api:�*'A -A The Court of Appeals. Stephenson, Cir- cuit Judge, he'd that ha standing to challenge the resolutios, that in the absence of special ci'cr�w stances of state interest, regulation 9 abortion was unconstitutional; there was no evidence which indieated that performance of abortions would i& terfere with normal hospital routine ct require further staff and facilities 10 that outright ban on nontherapeutit abortions was unconstitutional; Aa that public hospital facilities must be made available to those physicians and their patients who have a right to, sad who request, such facilities. Physicians and others brought ac- tion challenging constitutionality of mu- nicipal hospital resolution which prohib- ited use of hospital facilities for non - therapeutic abortions. The District Court for the District of Minnesota, Philip Neville, J., 361 F.Supp. 932, en- joined enforcement of the resolution, or any similar resolution, and hospital com- . Affirmed. Heaney, Circuit Judge, dissented b from denial of petition for rehearing ie en bane and filed an opinion in why t Gibson, Circuit Judge, concurred. 1. Courts <S:=299.3(1) _ Standing to maintain an action CO' F tails such a personal stake in the OIIti come of the controversy as to assure W concrete adverseness which shPrpenstm presentation of issues upon which tbi court so largely depends for illuminatioe of difficult constitutional questions. 2. Constitutional Law G'42.2(1) Courts «299.3(2) Claims of medical doctors to fredl practice medicine according to the hilb- est medical standards without arbitrarl outside restraints are inextricably bDIV4 up with the privacy rights of wonuu . who seek abortions and such claims artl* sufficient to present a justiciable contrOt versy and confer standing on physiciAM who brought action challenging c0natit2 tionality of municipal hospital's reftA, to allow its facilities to be used fot. abortions. S. Abortion C:'1 Absent compelling circumstanera of state interest, regulation cf certain f9►- damentai rights, including abortion,; unconstitutional. }S T{ t r { r f` -.cam. tiFBE_.G v. CITY OF YI::JINL4 13-13 4. Abortion C1 e;hich is not neces_a - ;.e `we Where state fails to take cognizance life of the mother. r,ecc,:. -. nd of separate trimesters of pregnancy in that the resolution unduly restricts what its regulation of abortion procedures, the 'United States. Supreme Court has the regulation is overbroad and invalid. held to be a fundamental right, we are 5 Abortion al compelled to hold the resolution uncon- Where there was no evidence to in- stitutional. We therefore affirm. dicate that performance of abortions The Virginia Municipal Hospital is a would interfere with normal hospital public hospital operated by the City of routine or require further staff and fa- Virginia, Minnesota through a hospital cilities, ban on all abortions other than Commission. The Commission adopted ,hose to save the mother's life served Resolution 2606 on February 5, 1973 and neither the hospital nor the state and reaffirmed the resolution on February outright ban on nontherapeutic abor- 19, 1973.' tions was unconstitutional. Appellants sought relief pursuant to 6. Hospitals 0-6 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and the Civil • Administrators of municipal hospi- Right Acts, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and tal may not arbitrarily preclude abor- 1985 claiming that the resolution was an tions from the variety of services of- encroachment of their constitutionally fered which require no greater expendi- ture of available facilities and skills. The District Court dismissed the Ny- bergs, the Arpis, Melodie Wilson and 7. Hospitals «6 James E. Williams, leaving the two phy- Public hospital facilities must be sicians, Doctors' Mock and Tietz with made available for abortion services, as standing to bring the action. The City they are for other medical procedures, to of Virginia was dismissed as a party de- those physicians and their patients who fendant by the court. have a right to, and who request, such Resolution No. 2606 was declared by facilities. the court to be null and void and fur - ther: Defendants are permanently en- 0. C. Adamson, II, Minneapolis, Joined from attempting to enforce Minn., for defendants - appellants. Resolution No. 2606 or any similar Newton S. Friedman, Duluth, Minn., resolution or regulation and are re- for plaintiffs - appellees. quired and mandated to make the Vir- Before BRIGHT and STEPHENSON, ginia Municipal Hospital facilities Circuit Judges, and STUART, District available to any duly licensed physi- Judge." cian within, a period of 30 days from date hereof for the performance of fe- STEPHENSON, Circuit Judge. male abortions within and subject to The single issue to be decided in this the rules and principles stated in Roe case is the constitutionality of a resolu- v• Wade, 410 U.S. 153 [113] at p. 164 lion adopted by the municipal hospital [93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 1471 at Virginia, Minnesota. The resolution (1973).t prohibits the use of hospital facilities The members of the hospital commission for the performing of any abortion and the hospital administrator appeal. • W. C. STUART, District Judge, Southern the Virginia Municipal Hospital except when District of Iowa, sitting by designation. necessary to save the life of the mother. 1. The text of Resolution No. 2606 is not a 2. The court's memorandum in support of its part of the record. The parties agree, how- order is reported at 361 F.Supp. 932 (D. ever, that the thrust of the enactment is to Dlinn.1973). proscribe the performance of abortions at }S T{ t r { r f` -.cam. 1344 495 FEDERAL ELFORTLn, SERIES - 1� i 1, 21 Appellants initially contend that. the appellee- doctors have no standing to bring this action. Standing, of course, entails such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illu- mination of difficult constitutional questions. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 703, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). We think that the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 93 S.Ct. 739, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1973) has clearly paved the way for physicians to assert their constitu- tional rights to practice medicine, which now includes the right to advise and perform abortions. Justice Blackmun writing for the Court in Roe v. Wade, supra at 163, of 410 U.S. at 732 of 93 S.Ct. stated: [F]or the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attend- ing physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's preg- nancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State. The opinion states further at 165, 93 S. Ct. at 733: [This] decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where im- portant state interests provide com- pelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion deci- sion in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and ba- sic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. The impact of the court's discussion can- not be fairly said to limit standing to sue in abortion cases to pregnant wom- en. Neither can these opinions be read 4� i so narr`, lY as to accord standing on►c to a ph) =ician threatened with criminal prosecution. See Doe v. Bolton, supra et 188 -189 of 410 U.S., 93 S.Ct. 739. Clearly the claims of medical doctors to "freely practice medicine according to the highest medical standards without arbitrary outside restraints" are inex- tricably bound up with the privacy rights of women who seek abortions. YWCA v. Kugler, 342 F.Supp. 1048, 1055 (D.N.J.1972). This is sufficient to present a justiciable controversy and confer standing on the physicians who bring this action. See Griswold v. Con- necticut, 381 U.S. 479, 481, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) ; Abele v. Markle, 452 F.2d 1121, 1125 (CA21971) stay granted, 409 U.S. 908, 93 S.Ct. 212, 34 L.Ed.2d 169 (1972), remanded for consideration in light of Roe and Doe, 410 U.S. 951, 93 S.Ct. 1417, 35 L. Ed.2d 683 (1973); Doe v, Turner, 361 F.Supp, 1288, 1289 (D.Iowa 1973) (3 judge court) ; Freeman & Bass, P. A. v State of N. J. Com'n of Invest., 359 F. Supp. 1053, 1059 (D.N.J.1973); Cf. O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 94 S. Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974). Fur- thermore, the practical effect of the stringent limitation on the use of hospi- tal facilities for performing abortions is to arbitrarily bar the physicians from activities that directly affect their eco- nomic interests. Abele v. Markle, supra, 452 F.2d at 1125; see also, Data Proc- essing Service v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970) ; Ep- person v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 89 S.Ct. 266, 21 L.Ed.2d 228 (1968). Turning to the merits, we find :he fo- cal point to be whether a public hospi- tal can deny its facilities to doctors and their patients who seek abortionc,, using the same basic language that th- Su- preme Court has held to be unc.-.r:gtitu- tional in statutes providing c: i:riinal penalties. [3] The language of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton expressed th;: plain view that the abortion decision and its implementation is a fundamenta, right of personal liberty embraced within. the 1) At fr it cu of it R 71 is it q t only irn;nal arm at 739. ors to ng to ithout inex- rivacy rtions. 1048, .ent to and s who Con - S.Ct. )ele v. 971) ; S.Ct. anded e and 35 L. r, 361 3) (3 . A. v. 359 F. cf. 94 S. Fur - f the hospi- ons is f rom r eco- supra, Proc- 50, 90 Ep- S.Ct. he fo- hospi- 's and using e Su- :stitu- minal Wade plain id its right n the Arc.. �J <YEERG v. Ci: x OF VI GL -.'IA Citc Due Process Clause of the Fourtcxnth 1$a ':,a«ay Amendment and is thereby protected 4,5 F.2d 701, 'I from undue infringement by the State.3 In other words, absent compelling cir- cumstances of state interest, regulation of "certain fundamental rights," includ- ing abortion, is unconstitutional. Roe v. Wade, supra at 155 of 410 U.S., 93 S.Ct. 705, 708 and citations. The "compelling point" 4 was set out in a tripart test by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. The district court quoted the test and we quote it again here: (a) For the stage prior to approxi- mately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectua- tion must be left to the medical judg- ment of the pregnant woman's attend- ing physician. (b) For the stage subsequent to ap- proximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abor- tion procedure in ways that are rea- sonably related to maternal health. (c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. While the Roe and Doe decisions dealt with state statutes providing criminal penalties, those decisions cannot be read so narrowly. As the several noncriminal c aes cited by the court in Roe v. Wade point out, the issue is the existence of Certain fundamental rights. If any of the defined fundamental rights is found to be present the state must then show -compelling state interest" if it wishes to limit or regulate. Roe v. Wade, supra a 155 -156, 93 S.Ct. 705 and citations; $0e v. Wade, supra at 211, 93 S.Ct. 165 (Mr. Justice Douglas concurring) ; 0 1315 y, e ster City Hc.pit -1, i"» , CA1 1973) & n. 2. [41 We find—as have sevi -ral courts before us, including the district court in the instant case that a plain reading of the Roe and Doe decisions can lead to only one conclusion: Where the state fails to take cognizance of the separate trimesters of pregnancy in its regulation of abortion procedures, the regulation is overbroad and invalid. Doe v. Bolton, supra at 195 of 410 U.S., 93 S.Ct. 739; Roe v. Wade, supra at 163 of 410 U.S., 93 S.Ct. 705; Roe v. Wade, supra at 218, 93 S.Ct. 705 (Mr. Justice Douglas concurring) ; Nyberg v. City of Virgin- ia, supra at 939 of 361 F.Supp.; Doe V. Woodahl, 360 F.Supp. 20 (D.C.1973) ; Doe v. Israel, 482 F.2d 156, 159 (CAI 1973) ; ef.' Hathaway v. Worcester City Hospital, supra at 706 of 475 F.2d. Appellant frames the issue to be whether the state has an affirmative duty under Roe and Doe to provide abor- tion facilities. This record does not present a situation where the hospital would be required to establish new or different facilities and staff in order to perform the operations. For reasons set out below, we find that the district court in this case was correct in ordering the Virginia Municipal Hospital to make its existing facilities available for the per- forming of abortions. The First Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Hathaway v. Worcester City Hospital: But it seems clear, after Roe and Doe, that a fundamental interest is in- volved, requiring a compelling ration- ale to justify permitting some hospital surgical procedures and banning an- other involving no greater risk or de- mand on staff and facilities. w [I]t is clear under Roe and Doe that a complete ban on a surgical procedure relating to the fundamental interest in I The record supports the trial court's deter- C. f 19M purpooea. The parties do not rination that there is state involvement contest the fact. k" constituting "state action" for 42 U.S. 4. Roe v. Wade, supra at 163, 93 S.Ct. at 742. 445 F.2"5 iL tv t 1346 495 'FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES the pregnancy decision is far too broad when other comparable surgical procedures are performed. 475 F.2d 701, 705 -706. The court concluded: [O]nce the state has undertaken to provide general short -term hospital care, as here, it may not constitution - ally draw the line at medically indis- tinguishable surgical procedures that impinge on fundamental rights. 475 F.2d 701, 706. The trial court here, as did the First -- Circuit in Hathaway, felt required to hold that an outright ban on nonthera- peutic abortions (Hathaway dealt with a municipal hospital's ban on sterilization operations) was unconstitutional under the teachings of Doe and Roe. We t agree. [5] The record in this case demon- strates no compelling circumstances which would mandate this hospital's abortion restricting rules. Nothing on this record indicates that the perform- ance of abortions will interfere with the normal hospital routine or require fur- ther staff and facilities. The ban on all abortions other than those to save the mother's life serves neither the hospital nor the state. Doe v. Bolton, supra at 198 of 410 U.S., 93 S.Ct. 739. [6] The trial court observed and we reiterate and adopt as our view, guided by the Supreme Court decisions in Roe and Doe: The administrators of the Virginia, Minnesota municipal hospital may not arbitrarily preclude abortions from the variety of services offered which require no greater expenditure of available facilities and skills. 361 F. Supp. 932, 938. 5. Contrary to the view taken by appellant, Roe and Doe do not suggest and no hospital need provide facilities for an abortion merely upon a mother's demand. Conversely. the court said: Roe v. Wade, ante, sets forth our conclu- sion that a pregnant woman does not 1-ave an absolute constitutional right to an abortion on her demand. Doe v. Bolton, See also Doe v. Bellin Memorial Hospi- tal, 479 F.2d 756, 759 (CA7 1973); Klein v. Nassau County Medical Center, D.C., 347 F.Supp. 496, 500 (1972), Xe- manded for consideration in light of Doe and Roe, 412 U.S. 924, 93 S.Ct. 2747, 2748, 37 L.Ed.2d 151 '(1973). The abortion decision and its effectua- tion is left by the Court to the patient and her attending physician .5 In the second and third trimesters of prey nancy the state may regulate abortions so long as the regulation is fashioned to accommodate the conflicting rights of pregnant women and the interests of the state. The sweeping hospital resolution in question here cannot withstand the constitutional parameters framed by Doe and Roe. It would be a nonsequitur to say that the abortion decision and its effectuation, is an election to be made by the physician and his patient without interference by the state and then alloy► the state, through its public hospitals, to effectively bar the physician from using state facilities to perform the op- eration. Appellant contends that because the Supreme Court in Doe v. Bolton did not strike down a provision of the Georgia statute which left a hospital free to deny admission to patients seeking abortions we must reach that same result here. The reading of Doe and Roe together, as the court instructs that the opinions should be read, does not allow that re- sult. The impact of Doe and Roe is to defined vet another fundamental right secured by the Constitution which may not be infringed under color of any state "statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage." 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We are not dealing here with the denomination- al hospital a or the religious or moral supra at 189 of 410 U.S., at 746 of 93 3. Ct. See also Roe and Doe, supra at 208 (qtr. Chief Justice Burger concurring). < 6. The supreme Court hnd this to say rrgtrd' ing the Georgia statutes provisions: These provisions obviously are in the rut - ute in order to afford appropriate protee' ,.. : , ,.�. �. 1346 495 'FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES the pregnancy decision is far too broad when other comparable surgical procedures are performed. 475 F.2d 701, 705 -706. The court concluded: [O]nce the state has undertaken to provide general short -term hospital care, as here, it may not constitution - ally draw the line at medically indis- tinguishable surgical procedures that impinge on fundamental rights. 475 F.2d 701, 706. The trial court here, as did the First -- Circuit in Hathaway, felt required to hold that an outright ban on nonthera- peutic abortions (Hathaway dealt with a municipal hospital's ban on sterilization operations) was unconstitutional under the teachings of Doe and Roe. We t agree. [5] The record in this case demon- strates no compelling circumstances which would mandate this hospital's abortion restricting rules. Nothing on this record indicates that the perform- ance of abortions will interfere with the normal hospital routine or require fur- ther staff and facilities. The ban on all abortions other than those to save the mother's life serves neither the hospital nor the state. Doe v. Bolton, supra at 198 of 410 U.S., 93 S.Ct. 739. [6] The trial court observed and we reiterate and adopt as our view, guided by the Supreme Court decisions in Roe and Doe: The administrators of the Virginia, Minnesota municipal hospital may not arbitrarily preclude abortions from the variety of services offered which require no greater expenditure of available facilities and skills. 361 F. Supp. 932, 938. 5. Contrary to the view taken by appellant, Roe and Doe do not suggest and no hospital need provide facilities for an abortion merely upon a mother's demand. Conversely. the court said: Roe v. Wade, ante, sets forth our conclu- sion that a pregnant woman does not 1-ave an absolute constitutional right to an abortion on her demand. Doe v. Bolton, See also Doe v. Bellin Memorial Hospi- tal, 479 F.2d 756, 759 (CA7 1973); Klein v. Nassau County Medical Center, D.C., 347 F.Supp. 496, 500 (1972), Xe- manded for consideration in light of Doe and Roe, 412 U.S. 924, 93 S.Ct. 2747, 2748, 37 L.Ed.2d 151 '(1973). The abortion decision and its effectua- tion is left by the Court to the patient and her attending physician .5 In the second and third trimesters of prey nancy the state may regulate abortions so long as the regulation is fashioned to accommodate the conflicting rights of pregnant women and the interests of the state. The sweeping hospital resolution in question here cannot withstand the constitutional parameters framed by Doe and Roe. It would be a nonsequitur to say that the abortion decision and its effectuation, is an election to be made by the physician and his patient without interference by the state and then alloy► the state, through its public hospitals, to effectively bar the physician from using state facilities to perform the op- eration. Appellant contends that because the Supreme Court in Doe v. Bolton did not strike down a provision of the Georgia statute which left a hospital free to deny admission to patients seeking abortions we must reach that same result here. The reading of Doe and Roe together, as the court instructs that the opinions should be read, does not allow that re- sult. The impact of Doe and Roe is to defined vet another fundamental right secured by the Constitution which may not be infringed under color of any state "statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage." 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We are not dealing here with the denomination- al hospital a or the religious or moral supra at 189 of 410 U.S., at 746 of 93 3. Ct. See also Roe and Doe, supra at 208 (qtr. Chief Justice Burger concurring). < 6. The supreme Court hnd this to say rrgtrd' ing the Georgia statutes provisions: These provisions obviously are in the rut - ute in order to afford appropriate protee' HEANEY, Circuit Judge, joined by GIBSON, Circuit Judge (dissenting from denial of the petition for rehearing en bane. We would grant the petition for re- hearing en bane. Two questions deserve more thorough consideration: (1) Do staff physicians of a public hospital have standing to maintain an action against that hospital to require it to permit non - therapeutic abortions in the hospi- tal; and (2) do Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 93 S.Ct. 739, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1973), and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), require that every public hospital make its facili- ties available for non - therapeutic abor- tions. STANDING The District Court gave the physicians 1 standing on two grounds: tion to the individual and to the denomina- tional hospital. Doe v. Bolton, supra at 198, 93 S.Ct. at 750. See Doe v. Bellin Memorial Iiosp., 479 F2d ;, 756 (CA7 1973). r, 1. In Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 93 S.Ct. 739, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1973), the physicians alleged that they were regularly consulted 1. by pregnant women desiring abortions. In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 t. r -' &Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (196:1), the r physician involved had given birth control ad- or tons per orme . The Supreme Court stated in Roe that a childless married couple lacked stand- ing because: " their alleged injury rests on possible future contraceptive failure, possible future pregnancy, possible fu- ture unpreparedness for parenthood, and possible future impairment of health. • • • Roe v. Wade, supra at 128. Dr. Mock and Dr. Tietz appear to be in substantially the same position as the childless couple in Roe. Their injury, if any, appears to rest on their acquiring patients in the future who may wish to have abortions performed in the munici- pal hospital. We are reluctant to ex- tend Roe and give standing to these physicians without a more thorough con- sideration of the implications of that ex- tension. vice to married persons and was convicted for doing so. In Abele v. Markle, 452 F.2d 1121 (2nd Cir. 1971), the physicians alleged that they had pregnant patients who in their medical judgment should have abortions. In Young Women's Christian Assn of Prinreton, N. J. v. Kugler, 342 F.Supp. 1048 (D.N.J. 1972) (3 -judge court), the physicians alleged they were forced to turn away patients in- terested in abortions. In Doe v. Turner, 361 F.SuPP. 1288 (S.D.lown 1973) (3 -judge court), the physicians alleged that they had pregnant Patients who wanted abortions. t 1, '+t :Al c ictians of any individual. Instead '1; Thy v have a ri; ht to practice we deal with unnecessary restrictive medicine according to the highest medi- rules imposed by a state facility upon a cal standards }without arbitrarp re- Yconstitutionally protected choice. straints —a right inextricably bound up [7] For the reasons set out above, with the private rights of a woman seek- ing while we propose to fashion no specific an abortion. procedures which must be followed nor (2) They cannot be arbitrarily de- to require any individual staff members prived of an opportunity to perform ' to participate in abortion procedures, we abortions which may account for a por- do hold that the hospital facilities must tion of their livelihood. be made available for abortion services, This Court adopted the trial court's as they are for other medical prose- reasoning. It held that the physicians dures, to those physicians and their pa- had standing on both of the grounds set tients who have a right to and request forth by the District Court. With re- such facilities. spect to ground (1), this Court went Affirmed. further than other courts t in granting standing to physicians who failed to al- On Petition for Rehearing, lege or prove that they had patients who desired to have HEANEY, Circuit Judge, joined by GIBSON, Circuit Judge (dissenting from denial of the petition for rehearing en bane. We would grant the petition for re- hearing en bane. Two questions deserve more thorough consideration: (1) Do staff physicians of a public hospital have standing to maintain an action against that hospital to require it to permit non - therapeutic abortions in the hospi- tal; and (2) do Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 93 S.Ct. 739, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1973), and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), require that every public hospital make its facili- ties available for non - therapeutic abor- tions. STANDING The District Court gave the physicians 1 standing on two grounds: tion to the individual and to the denomina- tional hospital. Doe v. Bolton, supra at 198, 93 S.Ct. at 750. See Doe v. Bellin Memorial Iiosp., 479 F2d ;, 756 (CA7 1973). r, 1. In Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 93 S.Ct. 739, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1973), the physicians alleged that they were regularly consulted 1. by pregnant women desiring abortions. In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 t. r -' &Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (196:1), the r physician involved had given birth control ad- or tons per orme . The Supreme Court stated in Roe that a childless married couple lacked stand- ing because: " their alleged injury rests on possible future contraceptive failure, possible future pregnancy, possible fu- ture unpreparedness for parenthood, and possible future impairment of health. • • • Roe v. Wade, supra at 128. Dr. Mock and Dr. Tietz appear to be in substantially the same position as the childless couple in Roe. Their injury, if any, appears to rest on their acquiring patients in the future who may wish to have abortions performed in the munici- pal hospital. We are reluctant to ex- tend Roe and give standing to these physicians without a more thorough con- sideration of the implications of that ex- tension. vice to married persons and was convicted for doing so. In Abele v. Markle, 452 F.2d 1121 (2nd Cir. 1971), the physicians alleged that they had pregnant patients who in their medical judgment should have abortions. In Young Women's Christian Assn of Prinreton, N. J. v. Kugler, 342 F.Supp. 1048 (D.N.J. 1972) (3 -judge court), the physicians alleged they were forced to turn away patients in- terested in abortions. In Doe v. Turner, 361 F.SuPP. 1288 (S.D.lown 1973) (3 -judge court), the physicians alleged that they had pregnant Patients who wanted abortions. t 1, '+t :Al +f, i 2348 X95 FE With respect to ground (2), Dr. Mock simply alleged and proved that he was a practicing physician on the staff of the Virginia Municipal Hospital, and Dr. Tietz simply alleged and proved that he was a gynecologist on the staff of the Virginia Municipal Hospital. Neither physician alleged nor proved that his economic interest would be adversely affected by the hospital policy. The trial court recognized that fact in its findings when it stated that the hospi- tal could not deprive the physicians of an opportunity to "perform abortions which 7nay account for a portion of their livelihoods." 361 F.Supp. 932, 936 (D. Minn.1973) (Emphasis added.). It, nonetheless, found that the potential eco- nomic injury was sufficient to give standing. This Court, perhaps realizing the dif- ficulty of granting standing on such a tenuous ground, found that the physi- cians' economic interests were in fact di- rectly affected. It stated: * * * the practical effect of the stringent limitation on the use of hos- pital facilities for performing abor- tions is to arbitrarily bar the physi- cians from activities that directly af- fect their economic interests. * * * George W. Nyberg et al. v. The City of Virginia et al., 495 F.2d 1342, p. 1344 (8th Cir. 1974). must permit qualified staff members Xe perform abortions in such hospitals They seem to assume that Doe and ROO ., require this result. We find ro . compulsion in those decisions and ate re- •° luciant to extend their holdings out more careful consideration. ' w Doe and Roe are primarily cancerned with protecting the right of a Pregnant woman to have an abortion. If right can be reasonably protected witl!- out compelling every public clinic and J hospital in the United States to persona the procedure, consideration should given to doing so. An inquiry should g perhaps be made into the question Of whether the order is reasonably nects- sary to protect the constitutional rights t to of pregnant women. Central to - a inquiry would be the cost and avalla' bility of alternate facilities, the effect on the staff and routine of the ��U+l being asked to perform the p and whether public assistance is availa- ble to assist the person in having the abortion performed at another publit or private facility willing to undertake the procedure. We would have no quarrel with ex- tending standing to physicians who al- lege or prove that their economic inter- ests has been or will be directly affected. We do question the extension of stand- ing to physicians who fail to allege or prove that their economic interests have been or will be directly affected. Cf., Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972). MERITS This Court appears to hold that all public hospitals with adequate facilities f . , try In Minnesota, for example, many Pub' ' <X lic and private clinics and hospitals per' with the ilfi form abortions in accordance decisions in Doe and Roe. It may be' 4 therefore, that the rights of those desir , in the Virginia,,:y . ing abortions who live not significantly dampened by ! area are the policy of the municipal hospital ie, believe that a de- that community. We cent regard for the deep - seated convic- tions of those in the community who fa -z ✓ s € Yt tir �6,7s .}^ DER AL REPORTER, 2d SERIES +f, i 2348 X95 FE With respect to ground (2), Dr. Mock simply alleged and proved that he was a practicing physician on the staff of the Virginia Municipal Hospital, and Dr. Tietz simply alleged and proved that he was a gynecologist on the staff of the Virginia Municipal Hospital. Neither physician alleged nor proved that his economic interest would be adversely affected by the hospital policy. The trial court recognized that fact in its findings when it stated that the hospi- tal could not deprive the physicians of an opportunity to "perform abortions which 7nay account for a portion of their livelihoods." 361 F.Supp. 932, 936 (D. Minn.1973) (Emphasis added.). It, nonetheless, found that the potential eco- nomic injury was sufficient to give standing. This Court, perhaps realizing the dif- ficulty of granting standing on such a tenuous ground, found that the physi- cians' economic interests were in fact di- rectly affected. It stated: * * * the practical effect of the stringent limitation on the use of hos- pital facilities for performing abor- tions is to arbitrarily bar the physi- cians from activities that directly af- fect their economic interests. * * * George W. Nyberg et al. v. The City of Virginia et al., 495 F.2d 1342, p. 1344 (8th Cir. 1974). must permit qualified staff members Xe perform abortions in such hospitals They seem to assume that Doe and ROO ., require this result. We find ro . compulsion in those decisions and ate re- •° luciant to extend their holdings out more careful consideration. ' w Doe and Roe are primarily cancerned with protecting the right of a Pregnant woman to have an abortion. If right can be reasonably protected witl!- out compelling every public clinic and J hospital in the United States to persona the procedure, consideration should given to doing so. An inquiry should g perhaps be made into the question Of whether the order is reasonably nects- sary to protect the constitutional rights t to of pregnant women. Central to - a inquiry would be the cost and avalla' bility of alternate facilities, the effect on the staff and routine of the ��U+l being asked to perform the p and whether public assistance is availa- ble to assist the person in having the abortion performed at another publit or private facility willing to undertake the procedure. We would have no quarrel with ex- tending standing to physicians who al- lege or prove that their economic inter- ests has been or will be directly affected. We do question the extension of stand- ing to physicians who fail to allege or prove that their economic interests have been or will be directly affected. Cf., Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972). MERITS This Court appears to hold that all public hospitals with adequate facilities f . , try In Minnesota, for example, many Pub' ' <X lic and private clinics and hospitals per' with the ilfi form abortions in accordance decisions in Doe and Roe. It may be' 4 therefore, that the rights of those desir , in the Virginia,,:y . ing abortions who live not significantly dampened by ! area are the policy of the municipal hospital ie, believe that a de- that community. We cent regard for the deep - seated convic- tions of those in the community who fa -z vor abortions, as well as those who oP-. by de .}^ pose abortions, can be recognized h termining whether the rights of Preg- can bt Z' nant women desiring abortions reasonably protected without requiring ; the municipal hospital to perform abor- the full S't tions against its will. At least, tions Court should consider the alternative be- fore a far - reaching precedent is estab- lished. STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION SAINT PAUL BUILDING CODES AND STANDARDS DIVISION March 5, 1982 Mr. Homer Pittman Building Official City Hall !Hutchinson, MN 55350 Dear Mr. Pittman: 409 METRO SQUARE 7TH AND ROBERT STS. ST. PAUL, MN E5101 Phones 612/296 -4639 FOR YOUR INFORMATION As we discussed by telephone today, the press of time and prior 6amnitment do not permit us to provide you with assistance to perform on -site evaluation of buildings at this time. The loss of eight positions due to budget cuts, three of whom were in this section, has nessitated limiting our travel and individual service that we can render to building officials. We regret that we cannot assist you at this time and are hopeful of returning to our previous level of service to municipalities in I the future. Yours truly, BUILDING CODES & STANDARDS DIVISION Sivert O. Hendrickson Supervisor, Mfr. Structures SOH /cj AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER J I (612) 587 -5151 CITY OF HUTCg INSON 37 WASHINGTON AVENUE WEST HUTCHINSON, MINN. 55350 T0: Mayor & City Council FOR YOUR INFORMATION FROM: Bruce Ericson, Director, Parks & Recreation Department DATE: March 5, 1982 SUBJECT: Concession Stand Lease At the March meeting of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board, the Board recommended that the City refuse all bids for the stands at Tartan and Library Square Parks.- This is based on the fact that-we do not own the buildings at these locations. CROW RIVER REGIONAL LIBRARY BOARD February 8, 1982 FOR YOUR INFORMATION The Crow River Regional Library Board met at the Meeker County Courthouse on February 8, 1982. Present: Orlynn Mankell, New London Representing: Kandiyohi County Wayne Hebrink, Renville is Kandiyohi County Dorothy Hinseth, Sunburg No Kandiyohi County George Jepson, Winsted of McLeod County Earl Mathews, Glencoe of McLeod County Ellen Moench, Eden Valley "- Meeker County Jeanne Lundstrom, Cosmos of Meeker County Delores Condon, Litchfield Litchfield John Esbjornson, Willmar Willmar ' Jeanette Buchanan, Willmar " Willmar John Horrocks, Hutchinson " Hutchinson Albert Linde, Hutchinson Hutchinson Dennis Ulrich,-Renville _ -- Renville - Burton Sundberg, Director, CRRL Kathy Matson, Asst. Dir., CRRL Absent: Jean Stranbe_rg, Atwater* = Representing: Fandiyohi County_ - - Lilah Buhr, Stewart* " McLeod County Lionel Barker, Glencoe* of Glencoe Judy Johnson, Litchfield* is Litchfield LeRoy Sanders, Willmar* it Willmar Harriet Berg, Dassel n Meeker County Pauline Reigstad, Bird Island* ° Bird Island _ *Excused absence Chairman orlynn Mankell called the meeting to order. Jeanette Buchanan was.,ppointed acting secretary for the evening. Esbjornson /Hebrink moved that the minutes of the January meeting be accepted. Carried. Treasurer's report deferred until next month due to absence of Treasurer. Director Sundberg stated that vacation update is being done on the Kandiyohi County computer program. Vacation hours are now noted on the bottom of each payroll check stub. Sick leave may also be noted in the future. Director's Report: 1. Mr. Sundberg will be meeting with the Kandiyohi County Commissioners on February 17. (Delayed until March -3),Representatives from'Kandiyohi County were - encouraged to attend this meeting with Mr. Sundberg. 2. At the system director's meeting, the Maintenance of Effort was discussed. It was the consensus of that group and the Legislative joint committee on libraries that the State Aid maintenance of effort be waived during the next state biennium -(FY '83 and 184) as long as the governmental jurisdiction meets at least the minimum of .4 mill on the adjusted valuation of two years prior or $3.36 per capita, whichever is less. In our region most of the governing bodies are just barely meeting the minimum require- ments so probably none of them would be eligible for this exemption even if it is approved by the legislature. 3. OPLIC budget has also been greatly reduced. 4. Statistical Report -- Decrease in circulation possibly due to weather. 5. Glencoe Library -- will be expanding in their present location. Will possibly be closed for at least two weeks. 6. Grove City -- Council had requested cutting library hours due to high heating bills for the library. After meeting with the Council, the Library will continue with their present hours. After re- arranging the shelving there, the heating circulation has been improved. �C� 7. Long Range Plan -- Kathy Matson has compiled a survey to be used in helping formulate long range planning. Prior to doing the survey, a news release will explain same. Horrocks Ulrich moved that the library staff is authorized to proceed with the survey as a means of helping determine the Long Range Plan. Carried. - Hebrink /Moench moved that the bills be paid. Carried. The check to Mankato Business Products was noted. This was for the Savin Copier. This will be charged to the opera- ting account with a new number at the recommendation of Mr. Eischens, the accountant." Committee and Project reports: 1. SAMMIE -- The last meeting was postponed due to inclement weather. Next meeting is February 16. 2. MLA Legislative Day has been cancelled. _ .............. 3. LSCA -- possible phaseout of LSCA funds in 1983. 4. ALA /MLA sponsored trustee workshop -- April 16 -17. Deadline for registration is April 6, 1982. Registration., lodging, and mileage will be reimbursed for those trustees attending. 5. Fairfax -- Phone call received from librarian inquiring about possible bookmobile service. Contact will be made with them regarding the possibility of joining CRRL system as Bird Island and Renville have. Unfinished Business---None---- New Business: ir,. a. Liability Insurance __. - -_Two. bids have been received, awaiting the third. Tabled until March meeting.---. ,�.. b. SAMMIE grant -- OCLC data base -- The staff presented material regarding an OCk terminal which would cost $6,000.00. This would include training of personnel on this. Esbjornson/Horrocks.moved that CRRL apply for a SAMMIE grant for an OCLC data base terminal. Carried.. _ c. ALA Conference in Philadelphia -- July 10 -15. Ms. Matson is interested in attending this conference..Money has been allocated in the budget for such a conference. _ Mathews /Lundstrom moved that Ms. Matson be authorized to attend the ALA Conference in Philadelphia. Carried. d. The library policies in regards to staff working conditions was discussed. In that the CRRL has just completed its first ten years, it was felt that all such policies should be reviewed and revised as needed. The following committee was appointed to work on this: Ms. Condon, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Horrocks. Buchanan /Jepson moved that the above committee be charged with the responsibility of reviewing and revising the CRRL policies and report back to the Board at the June meeting. Carried. e. A letter received from the Head Librarian at Litchfield (Martin Swalboski) regarding the possibility -of changing the snow day - policy for this year. Current policy calls for two snow days per year- -not cumulative. After considerable discussion, Mathews /Ulrich moved that the current policy of two snow days per year not be changed. Carried. f. State mileage rate has now been increased to $.24 a mile. (Rate was $.22.) Buchanan/ Jepson moved that the mileage rate be increased-to $.24 per mile effective February 1, 1982. Carried. Meeting adjourned. Jeanette Buchanan . a Secretary pro tem February 1982 Balance Receipts: State/Federal Aid Kandiyohi County Meeker County McLeod County Willmar Litchfield Hutchinson Glencoe Bird Island Renville Petty Cash Gifts Other 0 CROW RIVER REGIOM4L LIBRAPY0 Treasurer's Re-oort LeRoy Sanders, Treasurer Total Receipts: _ From 1981 Budget TOTAL RECEIPTS & BALANCE:-_ INCOME THIS MONTH 3(15,839-82) 29,222.00 1,772.07 $30.994.07 YEAR TO DATE,, = 0. 7S 29,222.00 18,126.00 14,83o.25 7,697.00 lo,996.75 5,036.50 1,674.5o 3,639.83 273.00 _ $919495.83_ - 815,154.25 #83,154.96_ -_ - _ MTD YTO _t_ OF EXP_t EXPENOITUAES EX?ENDITUR =S TO EST BUDGET 113,000.00 72,504.o0 50,233.00 55,07.4.00 59,321.00 30,788.00 43,987.00 20,146.00 6,o96.00 6,698.00 22,000.00 _0_ 10.000.00 $489,847.00 5,000.00 $494,847.00 CURRENT 3LIOGET - PE .R50r:aL SERVICE`• , • 29.222.00 ' . 82,546.50 - SALARIES -J 251312.44 52.474.86 16.774 ' 3:2,951.00 - HOSPITAL M;DICAL INSURANCE_ - - - - -- - - T--- - - - -_, 1934-3.47 as of February 28, 1982_ 2v ".6 ?�. 13,007.00 - PEaa A':J SGCIaL SECURITY 2#34a.16 - _29c?G.94 - - 4.745.95 -- --- - -- 16.451 28,000.09' ACCT GROUP- 29,50 1.07 59.901.7 5 I6.9?X 353x951.00 'Aa;TER F;iS �'^"_] yy{{i�l �� •a } fit:• _,ry� ��f`��d. 3x544.17 -- .` 8,-x29.88 I9. 13 44.053.07_ - 50 ")AS - CHILDREN 634.54 1,636.20 12.06% 14900-3.00 - P_2I7DICALS - - 565.34 728.43 9.113. 89000.00 - Pa+!r�LETS .00X 206.0] -- - Au-NO VISUAL .00 312.72 _ 7.82% 4000.00 _ PAINTINGS •CO .G7 .00% 100.00 60 zi6 - MiCkOF`7RMS, 40.50 _ 40.50 13.50% 300.-30 - mAINTEVANCE _ _ - TELEDhO ;i- r TERMINAL 3I8.35 655.01 13.94% 4,700,.:00'! - VE4ICLE OP =RATION - INCL INS _ 19015.71_ 1xo?6.79 15.33% 21.300.00 .846.00 OTHER . -- SUPPLI =S L PRINTI••:G - - - - - -- - - - - -- �_'-- _- 534.23 905.57 d.Z3G 11x000.00 - P+2O TIN; AND Pk')GRAMMING .00 _ .00_. =_ - -. - P]STA\SE 476.47 869.99 19.774 49406.00 - MILEAGE ANN `"EETINGS 13C.80 I- x214.56 - 24.2Q% 5_.603.0 - "!E'�:i=rSHIPS .00 300.00 50.0n�. 60.00 - IiiS:i °.4`1Cs .00 151.50 3.11% - 5,200.00 =v�Ji'ttFriT PENTS_L _ - -__- - -- 750.31 - - 1.254.33 !11.40% 1.L'00.04 - AJOITING S= RVICES - BGOKEEPING SERVICES - .JO : -- .Ot3 .00`•' -L 2?5.00 450.00 16.67% 2000.00 - Ca'• CATAL07 -- - -- - .00 - .00 .01Z 3x006.00 ACCT GROUP... - 2.157.31 - - -- -- - - -- 5.156. C2 - -- 12.37% 459350.00 CADITAL OUTLAY ' - Ej�JIoWFNT - -- - - -.. -- -_ - -- - .00 90.31 -- -- 2.26% _- 4_.00-3.00 °t -%;%Ch A'AOTIZATION FUNr) .00 .00i .00. 706.00 - VzHICLF AMORTIZATION FUND .JO .03 .00: 3,000.00 - - SaVIN CCPI_R -- _- 49539.56 4.539.56 .O�X_ .00 = ACCT GROUP... _ - 49539.56 49629.87 60.23% '- `79700.}0 ORG. TOTAL... 429305.23 - 839281.44- 16.83% 49,x9947.60,' ` FUN7- TOTAL... _ 42.305.23 83.281.44 �- 16.83' 4949847.00 - _ FINAL TOTAL.. 429305.23 83,281.44 16.83' 494,847.00 Investments redeemed $44 oo0.00 $70 300 00 y� Investments purchased Ending cash balance Savings Pass Book: $29,951.37 2,226.64 $32,178.01 t , • 29.222.00 ' . 82,546.50 12,372.98 (129372.98) as of February 28, 1982_ Amortization ]Amds �'^"_] yy{{i�l �� •a } fit:• _,ry� ��f`��d.